A TREATISE 

r 



BUGHARISTIG MYSTERY 



OR 



DEFENCE OF THE CATHOLIC DOGMA 



EUCHAEIST 



AGAINST THE RECENT ATTACKS OF ADVERSARIES. 



BY PETER FREDET, D. D. 

PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN ST. MARY'S SEMINARY, BALTIMORE. 



My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. — John vi. 56. 



BALTIMORE: 
METROPOLITAN PRESS. 

1844. 




Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year eigh- 
teen hundred and forty-four, by Louis Regis Deluol, in the 
Clerk's office, of the District Court of Maryland. 




Lc Control Number 



tmp96 031455 



PREFACE. 



This Treatise owes its origin chiefly to the publi- 
cation of a small volume issued from the Episcopalian 
press in the spring of the year 1843, under the fol- 
lowing title: "The Book of Ratramn, the priest and 
monk of Corbey, on the body and blood of the 
Lord. 5 ' As the avowed object of that publication 
was to spread, if possible, a belief among the peo- 
ple, that the Book of Ratramn affords a strong sup- 
port to the Protestant system on the subject of the 
Eucharist; it was but natural to expect that Catho- 
lics would not be slow in defeating the claims of 
Episcopalians, and showing that their pretensions are 
groundless. This was done in the October and July 
numbers of the U. S. Catholic Magazine, of the same 
year, 1843. It required no great labor to prove that 
Ratramn's work could do no harm whatever to the 
Catholic, and no service to the Protestant cause; par- 
ticularly, as its translator and publishers themselves 
seemed to be conscious of the deficiency of their 



iv PREFACE. 

claim, not having permitted the work to appear 
without an English version, which, (though unknow- 
ingly perhaps on the part of the American editors,) 
alters the sense of the original in several important 
passages. 

But there is a still more important question, the 
discussion of which has been also provoked by the 
same persons, and, we think, with infinite disadvan- 
tage to their party ; namely, what was the belief of 
the Church, not only at the time when Ratramn wrote 
his book, but likewise during all preceding as well 
as succeeding ages. Concerning this point also, it 
was proved from a variety of facts and documents, 
that nothing is wanting to secure the triumph of Ca- 
tholics, and that the faith which they actually pro- 
fess about the real presence and transubstantia- 
tion, was the unequivocal, unanimous and uninter- 
rupted belief of their Christian ancestors as far back 
as the time of the Apostles; (see U. S. Catholic 
Magazine, August number for 1843, and January 
number for 1844.) So numerous, however, are the 
proofs of their doctrine, that much more might have 
been said for its support; and as, on the other hand, 
the perusal of the controversy which was carried on 
for some months on this subject, was confined to a 
limited number of readers, it has been thought ad- 
visable by several persons of learning, wisdom and 
experience, to publish the vindication of the Catholic 



PREFACE. V 

dogma under a more accessible form, and with ad- 
ditional evidences; without however exceeding the 
limits of a small volume. It would, in fact, seem 
an unpardonable negligence on the part of Catholics, 
if they failed to improve the favorable opportunity 
thus afforded them, to establish in the face of the 
world, the antiquity, the perpetuity and the unshaken 
grounds of their doctrine. 

Such is then the object of the little Treatise which 
we now offer to the public. That it may be condu- 
cive to the glory of Christ in his divine sacrament, 
by strengthening Catholics in their holy faith, and 
aiding the truth to find its way to the minds and 
hearts of their Protestant neighbors, is the only de- 
sire of the author. 

He has endeavored to make his work neither too 
abridged nor too lengthy; not so abridged as to omit 
any thing essential, nor so lengthy as to fatigue the 
attention of his readers. With regard to the fre- 
quent and consecutive use of the words real pre- 
sence and transubstantiation, he begs leave to ob- 
serve, that it is not, as some might perhaps be in- 
clined to think, either tautology or an oversight ; 
but that it is required by the very nature of the sub- 
ject. Both these terms are necessary fully to express 
the Catholic dogma of the sacrament of the holy 
Eucharist ; the former signifying simply that Christ 
is truly present in it, and the latter adding to this, 



vi PREFACE. 

that he is present there in virtue of the change which 
he himself effects through the ministry of his priests, 
of the whole substance of the bread and wine into 
the substance of his body and blood. Since, there- 
fore, the words real presence and transuhstantiation 
are not exactly synonymous, it was requisite to make 
use of both, in order to leave no room for equivoca- 
tion and cavil. It w r as proper moreover, espe- 
cially in a theological tract like this, to place them 
generally together, because the divine truths which 
they express being equally revealed, and having been 
inseparably connected by the omnipotent will of 
Christ, ought to be equally and inseparably admitted. 



CONTENTS. 



Page 



Statement of the Catholic doctrine 9 

PART I. 

Perpetuity of the Catholic faith on the holy Eucharist . . 13 

CHAPTER I. 

Series of testimonies from the holy Fathers, Doctors and Coun- 
cils 16 

CHAPTER II. 

Impossibility of a change having taken place in the doctrine of 
the Catholic Church 35 

PART II. 

Proofs of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation 49 

CHAPTER U 

Proofs from Scripture 50 

Section I.— Words of the Promise. . , 53 

Section II. — Words of the Institution 60 

Section III. — Words of St. Paul concerning the reception of 

the holy Eucharist.. 82 



Vlll CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER II. 

Page 

Proofs from Tradition 89 

CHAPTER III. 

Proofs from the unanimous belief of all Christian societies, the • 

Protestant alone excepted.,. 107 

CHAPTER IV. 

Objections answered 128 

Recapitulation — Conclusion 143 

Table of authors 151 

General Index 153 



TREATISE 

01 THE EUCIiARISTIC MYSTERY. 



STATEMENT OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. 

According to the Catholic doctrine, the truth of 
which it will be our object to vindicate, the Eucharist 
is a sacrament which contains truly, really and sub- 
stantially, the body and blood, together with the soul 
and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the ap- 
pearances of bread and wine. This name, Eucharist, 
comes from the Greek word Ev^apiria, which signifies 
thanksgiving, and is very properly used to designate 
this divine Sacrament, since the holy Eucharist was 
instituted by our Lord immediately after he gave 
thanks to his Father, and since it is for us the best and 
most efficacious means to give due thanks to Almighty 
God for all his blessings. It is also called Commu- 
nion^ because it closely connects all the faithful to- 
gether as members of the same body, and unites 
them most intimately with Christ whom they Fe> 
ceive within themselves, in order that they may^ 
2 



10 STATEMENT OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE 

according to his own promise, abide in him, and he 
in them. * 

Again, the Eucharist is designated by the name of 
Holy Mysteries, of Blessed and Most Holy Sacra- 
ment, because it contains and imparts to us, not only 
sanctifying grace, but the author of grace himself, 
the Holy of Holies and the inexhaustible source of all 
sanctity, In fine, it is called Viaticum, when admi- 
nistered to persons in danger of death, because it is 
then intended to be their support in their last passage, 
and to enable them to reach safely the mansions of 
eternal bliss. 

Under this variety of names, the holy Eucharist is 
justly exhibited to us as one of the most signal benefits 
of the Almighty, and the complement, as it were, of 
all the mysteries of our Redemption. — That an infinite 
and eternal God should have become man for our sake 
and have suffered uptm a cross for our salvation, is a 
miracle of the divine mercy, goodness and love, which 
eternity itself will not be able sufficiently to praise: 
but, that the same God should choose to remain con- 
stantly with us in the Eucharist, and thus give himself 
entirely to us under the appearances of bread and 
wine, must not be accounted a less stupendous mira- 
cle, and deserves to be called the abridgment of all 
his wonders; 64 He hath made a remembrance of his 
wonderful works, being a merciful and gracious Lord, 
he hath given food to them that fear him. 95 1 

Bread, made of pure flour, is taken by the priest, 
and offered to God : outwardly no change takes place, 
and the appearances of bread remain; yet, its whole 
substance is, by the divine power and through the 
words of consecration, changed into the substance of 



John vi. 57. 



f Ps. ex. 4, 5. 



ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



11 



the body of Christ. The like happens to the wine in 
the chalice, its whole substance being also converted 
into the substance of our Saviour's blood; and as 
" Christ, rising again from the dead, dieth now no 
more,"* his blood and his soul as well as his divini- 
ty are on that account, together with his body, under 
the appearance of bread ; and likewise, his body and 
soul and divinity are together with his blood, under 
the appearance of wine.t 

This being a mystery so far exalted above the senses 
and imagination, it is by no means astonishing that it 
should have been attacked on several occasiens by the 
pride and vain curiosity of men. Yet, more than 
eight centuries elapsed, ere any one dared to oppose it 
in an open and direct manner; so steady and universal 
w r as its belief in the minds of the faithful. Hence, 
when the Manicheans and other ancient heretics de- 
nied the real presence, this was only by way of conse- 
quence, and because they also denied that Christ had 
taken the reality of human flesh at his coming into the 
world. The first, then, who dared to rise against it 
by a direct and open attack, was John Scotus Erigena, 
a man of very little repute for soundness of judgment 
among his own contemporaries. He had no followers, 
and his error on the Eucharist, broached towards the 
middle, was buried with him before the end of the 
ninth century. Being revived about two hundred 
years later by Berengarius, archdeacon of Angers, it 
was refuted by all the learned men of that period, and 
condemned in many councils: several times did Beren- 
garius himself retract it, and more than once, too, did 
he " return to his own vomit;" till at length he died, 

* Rom. vi. 9. f See Council of Trent, Sess. xiii. cap. S. 



12 STATEMENT OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. 



as it appears, a sincere penitent and in Catholic senti 
ments, A. D. 1088. 

The storm, raised in the sixteenth centur;^ by 
Luther against transubstantiation, and by Zuinglius, 
Carlostadius and Calvin against the real presence, 
was much more violent. At that period, many per- 
sons tired of the restraint put upon their pride and 
passions by the tenets and maxims of the Catholic 
Church, readily gave credence to all the misrepresen- 
tations and calumnies which had been disseminated 
against her, withdrew from her communion, and en- 
tangled themselves, chiefly on the subject of the 
Eucharist, in that variety of prejudices and errors in 
which their descendants are still involved. Against 
these novelties, the Council of Trent defended the 
ancient and apostolic faith, by declaring that Christ is 
present in the Eucharist, not barely in sign and figure^ 
as Carlostadius and Zuinglius thought, but truly ; not 
by a mere apprehension of our mind, or by a sort of 
power and virtue only, as Calvin and his followers 
imagined, but really and substantially, the whole 
substance of the bread and wine being, contrary also 
to Luther's opinion, changed into the sacred body and 
blood of our Saviour. 

Such is the important subject of which we under- 
take to treat in this little volume. We divide it into 
two parts. The first, which may be called historical, 
will establish the antiquity and perpetuity of the 
Catholic faith on the holy Eucharist. The second, 
chiefly dogmatical, will present the manifold and un- 
shaken grounds of our belief and doctrine concerning 
the real presence and transubstantiation. 



PART I. 



PERPETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH ON THE 
HOLY EUCHARIST. 

It is unfortunately true, and it has been a thousand 
times proved by experience, that individuals may de- 
viate from the path of sound doctrine, and by follow- 
ing the wanderings of their imagination, fall into the 
abyss of error. But that the same should ever happen 
to the Church of Christ is absolutely impossible. It 
is impossible, for instance, that, if our Lord were not 
substantially present in the Eucharist, and never 
taught the dogma of transubstantiation to his Apostles, 
nor his Apostles to the primitive Christians, that the 
Church should have ever been induced to admit these 
doctrines ; and vice versa, if these doctrines have been 
at any period believed by the whole Church, as they 
certainly were, e. g\, at the beginning of the pretend- 
ed reformation, and also when Berengarius appeared 
towards the middle of the eleventh century, it is im- 
possible that they should not have been always believed 
from the very origin of Christianity. Otherwise how 
could the Church be called " the pillar and ground of 
the truth?" (1 Tim. iii. 15.) How could it be said 
that " the gates of hell shall never prevail against 
her," nor shake her from the immovable rock upon 
which she was founded? (Matt. xvi. 18, and vii. 25.) 



14 PERPETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH 



How could " the Spirit of truth have abided with her 
for ever, 59 (John xiv. 16, 17,) and Christ been with 
her " all days, even to the consummation of the 
world?" (Matt, xxviii. 20.) In the Protestant system, 
all these divine promises are but empty sounds with- 
out effect; and if so, we can no longer place implicit 
reliance on the words of Christ, and the whole of his 
religion must yield to the assaults of the deist and 
infidel! Who can admit a principle or supposition? 
the consequences of which thus manifestly lead to the 
entire overthrow of Christianity itself? 

Again, if the Christian Church, as our opponents 
assert, did not admit transubstantiation and the real 
presence of Christ in the Eucharist during all the ages 
previous to the ninth or tenth century, it must have 
been because she could not reconcile herself to 
the idea of Christ's real body having been left us for 
the nourishment of our souls, though he himself had 
said: "The bread which I will give, is my flesh for 
the life of the world. .... For my flesh is meat 
indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.' 9 (John vL 5% 
56.) It must have been that these words appeared too 
hard as well to her as to many of our Lord's hearers, 
and that, instead of imitating those who said : " Lord, 
to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal 
life, 99 (ib. 68,) she preferred to say with others: 
" How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (ib. 53.) 
But let it be remembered by whom the latter words 
were uttered: they fell from the lips of the obstinate 
Jews, and of several inconstant and unhappy disciples 
who then abandoned Christ and walked no more with 
him, (ib. 67.) Will it be said, then, that the Church, 
during nine centuries, the first of her existence, in- 
volved herself in the fate of those unhappy men, and. 



ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



15 



by imitating their unbelief, had, like them, no part 
with our divine Saviour? Let those assert it, if they 
will, who may be disposed to assert every thing, except 
that the Catholics are in the right; as for us, we can- 
not entertain an opinion so injurious at once to the 
Church of Christ, and to his providential care for the 
work of his hands. 

Who, moreover, can better attest the antiquity and 
perpetuity of a doctrine, than the society by which it 
is universally revered and professed ; particularly a 
society so venerable for its antiquity, so fruitful in 
learned and holy men, so invariably attached from prin- 
ciple to her doctrines and practices, as the Catholic 
Church most assuredly is? How forcible, likewise, 
must her testimony appear, when we see it confirmed 
by the testimony of those who are her adversaries on 
other points, viz : the eastern sects of the schismatic 
Greeks, Armenians, Jacobites, Nestorians, who have 
now been separated from her for the space of eight, 
ten, or fourteen hundred years! In fact, all these 
aoree with her in referring their belief of transubstan- 
tiation and of the real presence of Christ in the Eucha- 
rist, to the primitive times, and to the very origin of 
Christianity.* What evidence shall we admit, if we 
may reject evidence like this? What fact shall we 
believe, if we do not believe a fact grounded upon 
such a constant and unanimous testimony of very 
many nations, otherwise differing from each other in 
several points of doctrine, in language, laws, customs, 
etc., and how can, in reality, the common belief of 
these various Churches on the subject of the Eucha- 
rist be accounted for, otherwise than by referring its 

* Of this we shall give abundant proofs hereafter, part II. eh. in, 



16 



PERTETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH 



origin to one common cause, namely, the faith of the 
primitive Church and the preaching of the Apostles? 

These considerations should surely suffice to demon- 
strate the perpetuity of the Catholic faith on the holy 
Eucharist; yet, as particular evidences commonly 
produce a greater impression on the mind than general 
arguments, we shall now proceed, ad superabundant 
tiam juris, to show the truth of our assertion — 1. by 
adducing the words of the ancient Fathers and Coun- 
cils, especially those passages which not only imply 
the real and substantial presence of Christ in the 
Eucharist, but also directly establish the dogma of 
transubstantiation; £, by showing the absolute impos- 
sibility of any innovation having ever taken place in 
the faith of the Church about this sacred mystery. 

CHAPTER I. 

SERIES OF TESTIMONIES FROM THE HOLY FATHERS, 
DOCTORS AND COUNCILS. 

To begin with the age which immediately followed 
that of the Apostles, we have first the testimony of 
St. Ignatius, disciple of St. John and bishop of An- 
tioch. Speaking of certain heretics of his time, he 
says : " they abstain from the Eucharist, because they 
do not acknowledge it to be the flesh of our Saviour 
Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which 
the Father by his goodness resuscitated. 5 '* 

Next comes St. Justin, a Christian philosopher, 
who suffered martyrdom at Rome about the year 166, 
in the persecution of Marcus Aurelius : "As Jesus 
Christ, 5 ' says he, " made man by the word of God, took 

* Epist. ad Smyrn, 



ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



17 



flesh and blood for our salvation; in the same manner 
we have been taught, that the food which has been 
blessed by the prayer of the words that he spoke, 
and by which our blood and flesh in the change are 
nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus incar- 
nate."* 

St. Irenxus, bishop of Lyons, who also suffered 
martyrdom, A. D. 202, under Septimius Severus, 
speaks as follows : "When the mingled chalice and 
the broken bread receive the word of God, they be- 
come the Eucharist — which is the body and blood oi 
Christ, "t 

St Hilary, bishop of Poitiers in the fourth cen- 
tury: " Of the natural verity of Christ in us, whatevei 
we speak, we speak foolishly and wickedly, unless we 
learn of him ; for it is he that said, my flesh is meat 
indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. There is no 
place to doubt the truth of Christ's flesh and blood : 
for now, by the profession of the Lord himself, and 
according to our belief, it is truly flesh and truly 
blood. *>\ 

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "As Christ, speaking of 
the bread, declared and said, this is my body, who 
shall dare to doubt it? And, as speaking of the wine, 
he positively assured us and said, this is my blood, 
who shall doubt it, and say that it is not his blood? 
Jesus Christ, in Cana of Galilee, changed water into 
wine by his will only; and shall we think him less 
worthy of credit, when he changes wine into blood? 
.... Judge not of the thing by your taste, but by faith 
assure yourself without the least doubt, that you are 
honored with the body and blood of Christ. This 

* Apol. 1. ad imper. Anton. f Advers. hseres, L. v. 

t De Trinit. L. viii. 



18 PERPETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH 

knowing and of this being assured, that what appears 
to be bread, is not bread, though it be taken for bread 
by the taste, but the body of Christ; and that what 
appears to be wine, is not wine, though the taste will 
have it so, but the k blood of Christ."* In this pas- 
sage of St. Cyril, we have almost as many proofs 
against the Protestant system, as there are not only 
sentences, but even words. What Catholic of the 
present day could express the dogma of transubstan- 
tiation better than this learned and holy doctor of the 
ancient Church did, in explaining to the Neophytes or 
newly baptized, the Christian doctrine on the subject 
of the Eucharist? t 

St. Eplirein, deacon of Edessa: " You believe that 
Christ, the Son of God, for you was born in the flesh ? 
Then why do you search into what is inscrutable? 
Doing this you prove" your curiosity, not your faith. 
Believe then, and with a firm faith receive the body 
and blood of our Lord. Abraham placed earthly food 
before the celestial spirits, of which they ate. This 
was wonderful. But what Christ has done for us, 
greatly exceeds this, and transcends all speech and all 
conception. To us that are in the flesh, he has given 
to eat his body and blood. . . . His body, by a new 
method, is mixed with our bodies, and his most pure 
blood is transfused into our veins. He is wholly in- 
corporated with us; and because he loved his Church, 
he was made the bread of life, that he might give him- 
self to be eaten, 

* Catech. My stag. iv. 

t We shall, in another place, give at greater length the words of 
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, together with those of St. Ambrose, St. 
John Chrysostom, and St. Cyril of Alexandria. 

X De Natura Dei minime scrutanda, et Hymn, xxxvii. De Virgin!- 
tate. 



ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



19 



St. Basil the Great, archbishop of Csesarea in Cap- 
padocia: " About the things that God hath spoken, 
there should be no hesitation nor doubt, but a firm 
persuasion that all is true and possible, though nature 
be against it. . . . With what fear, with what con- 
viction, with what affection of mind, should we par- 
take of the body and blood of Christ! The Apostle 
teaches us to fear, when he says, he that eateth and 
drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment 
to himself; while the words of the Lord, this is my 
body which shall be delivered for you, create a firm 
conviction. 9 '* 

St. Gregory, bishop of Nyssa and brother of St. 
Basil : " The bread sanctified by the word of God 
and prayer, is instantly changed into the body of 
Christ, agreeably to what he said, this is my body."\ 

St. Gaudentius, bishop of Brescia in Italy: " He 
who is the Creator and Lord of all natures, who pro- 
duces bread from the earth, of the bread makes his own 
proper body, (for he is able and he promised to do it;) 
and of the wine he makes his blood. O the depth of 
the riches of the knowledge and zoisdom of God! (Rom. 
xi. 33.) It is the pasch, that is, the passover of the 
Lord : think not that earthly which is made heavenly 
by him, who passes into it, and has made it his body 
and blood. "J 

The words of St. John Chrysostom, the illustrious 
archbishop of Constantinople, are not less explicit nor 
less remarkable: "Let us," says he, " believe God in 
every thing, and not gainsay him, although what is 
said may seem contrary to our reason and our sight. 
Let his word overpower both. — Since his word says, 
this is my body, let us assent and believe. . . . Pa- 

* In Regul. f Orat. Catech, e. 37. | Tract II. De Pasch. 



£0 PERPETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH 

rents often give their children to be nourished by 
others; not so I, says Christ: but I nourish you with 
my flesh, and I place myself before you. I was will- 
ing to become your brother; for the sake of you I took 
flesh and blood, and again I deliver to you that flesh 
and blood by which I became so related.' 5 — Again t 
" He that was present at the last supper, is the same 
that is now present and consecrates our feast. For, it 
is not man who makes the things on the altar become 
the body and blood of Christ; but that Christ who 
was crucified for us. The priest stands performing 
his office, and pronouncing these words; but the 
power and grace are the power and grace of God* 
He says, this is my body, and these words effect the 
change of the things offered. 95 * 

The great bishop of Hippo, St. Augustine, writes 
thus : " Christ took upon him earth from the earth 9 
because flesh is from the earth, and this flesh is from 
the flesh of Mary ; and because he here walked in this 
flesh, even this same flesh he gave us to eat for our 
salvation. But no one eateth this flesh, without hav- 
ing first adored it; and not only do we not sin by 
adoring, but we even sin by not adoring it. 55 t 

The age of St. Augustine furnishes us with another 
splendid testimony of the same belief and doctrine, in 
these words of St. Nilus, a priest and monk of Sina : 
66 Before the prayer of the priest and the coming of the 
Holy Spirit, the things laid on the table are common 
bread and wine; but after the solemn invocations and 
the descent of the adorable Spirit, it is no longer that 
bread and that wine, but it is the body and the pure 
and precious blood of Christ, the God of all. 55 J 

* Homil. S3 in Matth. — Homil. 46 in Joan.-— et I. De Prodit. 
Judee. fin Psalm, xcviii. % L. I. Ep. xliv. 



ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



St. Gregory the Great, Pope, who died in 604, 
speaking of our Lord in the character of the good 
shepherd, says: 4 'That good shepherd laid down his 
life for his sheep, that in our Sacrament lie might pro- 
duce by a change his body and blood, and feed with 
the aliment of his flesh the sheep which he had re- 
deemed."* 

Venerable Bede, that admirable doctor and light of 
the Anglo-Saxon Church, as he is usually termed, 
says likewise; 6 6 When we celebrate Mass, we again 
immolate to the Father the sacred body and the pre- 
cious blood of the Lamb, with which we have been 
redeemed from our sins. 5? t 

We will close this series of quotations from the 
Holy Fathers who lived in the first eight ages of the 
Church, with these words of St. John Damascene, 
whose death occurred about the year 780 : u You ask 
how does the bread become the body, and the wine 
mixed with some water the blood of Christ ; I answer, 
by the operation of the Holy Ghost, who can do much 
more than we can understand. As the bread which 
we eat, and the wine and water which we drink, are 
naturally changed into our body and blood : so the 
bread and the wine laid on the altar are, by the invo- 
cation, and the coming of the Holy Ghost, miraculously 
changed into the body and blood of Christ, "i 

To the reader, these passages in favor of the Catho- 
lic dogma of Christ's real and substantial presence in 
the Eucharist, and likewise of transubstantiation, must 
appear sufficiently explicit and intelligible. No men- 
tion is here made of a presence merely in sign, figure 
or virtue, nor of a merely symbolical change ; on the 

* Homil. xiv. in Evang. f Homil. in Vig. Pasch, 

{De Fide Orthod L. iv. c 14. 



22 



PERPETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH 



contrary, all this is positively excluded by the Fathers. 
According to them, as well as to modern Catholics, 
" we ought not to dispute against the word of God, 
nor trust to our reason and senses ; after the consecra- 
tion, there are no longer bread and wine in the Eucha- 
rist, although their appearances remain $ the bread has 
been miraculously changed, by the divine power, into 
the body of Christ, and the wine into his blood ; the 
same flesh is present on the altar, which was taken 
from the Blessed Virgin, which was crucified for us," 
etc., and the reality of these wonders " does not admit 
of the slightest doubt, when we consider the texts of 
the Gospel, the positive asseveration of our Lord, and 
the prodigies wrought by the Divine Omnipotence on 
other occasions, the Creation, the Incarnation, the 
change of the water into wine in Cana of Galilee," 
etc. Could the learned and sainted authors of these 
expressions have asserted the real presence and tran- 
substantiation in stronger and clearer terms? Had 
they, fourteen or sixteen hundred years ago, foreseen 
the Protestant doctrine on this point, could they have 
refuted it more effectually than they did? and would 
not the man who should attempt to pervert their 
meaning,, be ecju ally justifiable in producing the words 
of our catechisms or of the Council of Trent itself, 
and with a total disregard of truth, assert that they do 
not mean any such thing as the real presence and tran- 

substantiation? 

What we wish, however, to be chiefly noticed here, 
is that the doctrine of the Holy Fathers on the Eucha- 
ristic mystery was no other than that of the Church 
during the ages in which they lived. It is evident 
that they proposed it as such to their hearers anil 
readers, since they either spoke of it as of a truth uni -: 



ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



23 



versally known to the faithful, (as did, among others, 
St. Justin, St. Augustine, Venerable Bede ;) or made 
it the subject of their catechetical instructions, (St. 
Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gaudentius of Brescia, St. 
Cyril of Jerusalem;) or expatiated upon it in their 
homilies and discourses, in order to increase the piety 
and devotion of their flocks towards this sacred mys- 
tery, (St. Gregory the Great, St. Basil, St. John 
Chrysostom ;) or made use of it as an unquestionable 
principle to guard the faithful against the error of the 
Gnostics, who denied that Christ had taken a real 
body in the Incarnation, (St. Ignatius, St. Irenseus;) 
or, in fine, numbered it in their didactic letters and 
treatises among the principal tenets of the Christian 
faith, (St. Hilary, St. Ephrein, St. Nilus, St. John 
Damascene.) 

Hence, these instructions of the Fathers, whether 
first delivered by word of mouth or published in their 
writings, far from meeting with any opposition, as 
would certainly have been the case if they had savored 
of novelty, were on the contrary received every where 
with the greatest applause and respect, as containing 
the pure belief of the Church from the time of the 
Apostles. Hence too was their doctrine, whenever 
the occasion required, solemnly sanctioned by the acts 
and decrees of General Councils. The Council of 
Ephesus, for instance, in 431, approved the following 
dogmatical decision already passed against the Nesto- 
rian heresy, by the patriarch St. Cyril and the pro- 
vincial synod of Alexandria: "We offer the un- 
bloody sacrifice in the churches; we approach to the 
mystic thanksgivings, and are thus sanctified, being 
made partakers of the sacred flesh and precious blood 
of Christ, the Saviour of us all. For we receive it not 



£4 PERPETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH 

as common flesh; far, be this thought from us; but as 
the truly vivifying and proper flesh of the Word made 
man."*- — The second Council of Nice, at which 
three hundred and fifty bishops were present, made 
also this solemn declaration, (A. D. 787:) 64 Never 
has it been said by our Lord, or by the Apostles, or 
by the Fathers, that the unbloody sacrifice offered by 
the priests is only an image of Christ, but they have 
called it his true body and blood. The elements have 
indeed the name of antitypes, before they are sancti- 
fied; but after the consecration, they are called, they 
are believed to be, and they really are the body and 
the blood of Christ. 95 1 

It is, therefore, as plain as the light of day, that the 
whole Church, from her very origin, constantly be- 
lieved, professed and taught the dogma of tr an sub- 
stantiation, and of the true, real and substantial 
presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is manifest 
that the assertion so boldly advanced by the enemies 
of this dogma, viz. that Paschasius Radbertus, in 
the ninth century, was the first who propounded it, 
is contrary to all historical evidence, and argues in 
its authors, if not insincerity, at least a surprising 
ignorance of the history of religion. J This celebrated 

* Concil. Ephes, Apud Labbeum, Collect. Concil. vol. iii. p. 
404. 

f Cone. Nic. ii., Act. 6. — Labb. ib. vol. vii., 450, 
X Our adversaries are not, after all, so much convinced of the 
accuracy of their statement, as not occasionally to overthrow it them- 
selves. Thus we lately witnessed that, whilst they seemed to 
vie with each other in representing Paschasius as the originator of the 
dogma of transubstantiation, one of them unexpectedly expressed 
his opinion that there is no such thing "in the whole book of 
Paschasius;' 5 (see the case stated in the tenth number of the Catho- 
lic Magazine, 1843, p. 611.) So true it is that the assumed task of 



ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



25 



man was, it is true, the first who wrote professedly 
and at length, to use the expressions of Bellarmine, 
on the reality of the body and blood of Christ in the 
Eucharist ; but it is not less true, that a multitude of 
other writers had in every preceding age expressed the 
very same belief and doctrine, as w r e have just proved, 
and as the same Bellarmine fully demonstrates in his 
controversies. Nor is this by any means surprising; 
nothing has happened here, that had not already hap- 
pened about the other mysteries of the Christian faith. 
St. Athanasius was the first who wrote at length on 
the Holy Trinity; St. Cyril, the first who enlarged 
considerably upon the doctrine of the Incarnation; 
St. Austin, the first who treated in the same manner 
the question of Original sin. But, as the more ancient 
Fathers had often and clearly spoken of the Holy 
Trinity, of the Incarnation, of Original sin, without 
writing extensive and particular treatises on these 
mysteries ; so also, had they often and clearly men- 
tioned, in different parts of their works, the real pre- 
sence of Christ in the Eucharist, together with the 
change of the bread and wine into his body and blood, 
although they did not write long and separate books 
on the Eucharistic mystery. The task subsequently 
undertaken by Paschasius Radbertus consisted chiefly 
in collecting their different testimonies on this subject 
in one regular treatise; a task which he performed 
with extraordinary success, as will be mentioned here- 
defending a desperate cause, can drive its abettors to the most op- 
posite extremes. Whatever may have been their secret motive for 
adopting such an irregular and inconsistent course, one thing is 
certain, namely, that these two parties of theirs are equally in the 
wrong, and their contradictory assertions about Radbertus equally 
unjustifiable. 



26 



PERPETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH 



after; so that the very intent and contents of his book 
are a complete refutation of the charge so often and so 
absurdly brought against him as an innovator. 

Not less preposterous is the argument which our 
opponents endeavor to derive from the use of the 
word tran subs t ant tat ion itself. Confounding this 
word grammatically taken, with the dogma expressed 
by it, from the fact that this identical expression was 
not employed in the primitive times, although indeed 
it was equivalently used in the word change or trans- 
mutation, they conclude that the dogma was unknown 
to antiquity! Can there be a greater confusion of 
ideas? Can notions be more erroneous? Were this 
manner of reasoning admitted, it would follow, not 
only contrary to the truth, but also to the belief of 
the Pr'otestants themselves, that the doctrine of the 
Holy Trinity, of the Consubstantiality and Incarna- 
tion of the Son of God, was unknown in the time of 
the Apostles, and during the two or three first centu- 
ries of the Church, since the words Trinity, Consub- 
stantiality and Incarnation began only to be employed 
at the close of that period. This consequence our 
present adversaries surely will not admit. Since, 
therefore, the later use of these words cannot in any- 
wise be alleged against the Apostolic doctrine and the 
primitive belief of the mysteries which they express; 
so neither can the subsequent adoption in the Church 
of the word Transubstantiation be brought against the 
ancient faith and apostolic tradition of this dogma, 
which we have proved from so many unquestionable 
documents. 

But our arguments do not end here, and we have 
yet to show that the same doctrine on the holy Eucha- 



ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



27 



rist continued to he held in the ninth century and sub- 
sequently. It will be an easy task to do so, as, 
independently of various other evidences, the books 
alone of Paschasius Radbertus, the celebrated abbot 
of Corbey already spoken of, would suffice to answer 
our purpose and defeat all pretensions whatever to the 
contrary. This truly eminent scholar and divine, well 
acquainted with the Greek and Hebrew languages, 
deeply versed in the knowledge of Scripture and Tra- 
dition, which served alike to supply him with argu- 
ments, published about the year 831 his treatise on 
the Eucharist, in which, after reminding his readers 
of the omnipotence of God, which surpasses all human 
comprehension, he says: " We ought to believe that, 
after the consecration, what still appears to be bread 
and wine, is however nothing else than the body and 
blood of Christ. Of this, Truth itself assures us, saying : 
This is my flesh for the life of the world. . . . No 
one who believes the divine word, doubts the reality 
of the body and blood rendered present by the conse- 
cration of the mystery, as the same Truth has said : 
My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood, is drink in- 
deed"* The same doctrine he inculcates throughout 
his whole treatise, as also in his Commentary on the 
twenty-sixth chapter of St. Matthew, and finally in 
his letter to Frudegardus, the expressions of which are 
peculiarly remarkable: " After the prayer of the 
canon at mass, in which the priest begs of the Heaven- 
ly Father that the eucharistic elements may become 
the body and blood of his most beloved Son, our Lord 
Jesus Christ, all the people with unanimous voice 
answer Amen; and thus the whole Church of every 

*De Verit. Corp. et Sang. Dom. ch. i. et iv. 



£8 



PERPETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH 



nation and language, after having offered her prayers, 
confesses that what she prays for, has taken place. 
Let the person, then, who might be more inclined to 
contradict than to believe, see what he is doing against 
the Lord himself, and against the whole Church of 
Christ. It is an enormous crime to pray with all, and 
not to believe what Truth itself testifies, and what all 
Christians every where and unanimously confess to be 
true. Since Christ himself declares that it is his body 
and his blood, all doubt upon the subject must be 
dismissed."* 

Now, one of these two things ought to be admitted ; 
either what Paschasius repeatedly and publicly relates 
of the unanimous and universal belief of the Church in 
his time is incontestable, or that writer must have 
been insane thus to advance, in the face of the world, 
as notoriously true, what he knew to be notoriously 
false; and consequently, he should have been con- 
sidered as the most despicable and impertinent man 
that ever attempted to write on any subject. But far 
from it, we find him esteemed, praised and respected, 
especially after the publication of his book on the 
Eucharist, by learned men, by princes and prelates, 
particularly the French bishops, twenty of whom, in 
their Council of Paris, (A. D. 846,) called him their 
venerable brother, verier abilem fratrem Radbertum, 
and readily confirmed at his request the privileges of 
the monastery of Corbey. His treatise was every 
where received with such applause and read with such 
satisfaction, that the author was induced to give a 
second edition of it, about thirteen years after its first 
publication, Instead of the multitude of adversaries 



* Epist. ad FruclegarcL 



ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



29 



whom the lively imagination of some Protestant con- 
trovertists has arrayed against it, we find the whole 
crowd of contemporary authors (excepting however 
Scotus Erigena^ whose writings were on that account 
condemned by the Church,) agree with Paschasius in 
relation to the Catholic dogma on the Eucharist. As 
this point has been extensively and satisfactorily proved 
by a host of learned critics and theologians,* we shall 
here adduce only some passages from the chief writings 
of that period. 

Amalarius, deacon of Metz towards the year 840, 
says in his work on church offices: " We believe 
that the inanimate nature of the bread and of the wine 
mixed with some water, is changed into the rational 
nature of the body and blood of Christ, n t 

Florus, deacon of Lyons, who nourished about the 
same time, writes thus: " When the creature of bread 
and wine is, by the unspeakable operation of the 
Holy Ghost, changed into the body and blood of the 
Son of God, Christ is eaten. ... It is he himself 
who* through the powerful benediction of the Divine 
Spirit, make the elements become his sacred body and 
Mood, "if 

Haymon, bishop of Halberstadt: " We believe 
and faithfully confess that the substance of the bread 
and wine is, through the operation of the divine 

* See Mabillon, Prcefat. in 4um Sceculum Benedict, Part II. Chapt. 
1. pp. 282 — 329; — Ceillier, Histoire des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, 
vol. xix. pp. 77 — 148; — Natalis Alexander, In Histor. Eccles. 
Scec. ix. et x., Dissertat. x — xv, vol. vi. pp. 337 — 371 ; — and the 
celebrated work of Perpetuite de la foi Be I'Eglise Catholique 
iouchant VEucharistie, vol. i. book viii. 

f De Ecclesiasticis Officiis, lib. iii. c. 24. 

X In Expositione Missae. 



SO PERPETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH 

power, substantially converted into another substance, 
that is to say, the flesh and blood of Christ. . . . In 
order to remove or diminish the repugnance and ex- 
cessive awe which might otherwise prevent us from 
approaching ; Almighty God, accommodating himself 
to our infirmity, washes the taste and the figure of the 
bread and wine to remain in the Eucharist 5 but their 
substance is entirely converted into the body and the 
blood of Christ."* 

Bab anus Maurus, archbishop of Mentz: 66 Who 
could believe that bread could be changed into flesh, 
and wine into blood, had not our Saviour himself said 
it, —He who created bread and wine, and made all 
things out of nothing ? It is easier to make one 
thing out of another, than to create all things from 
nothing, "t 

Bemigius, monk of St. German of Auxerrei ""Since 
the Eucharist is truly the body of Christ, why is it 
called a mystery? The reason is, because after the 
consecration there seems to be another thing. It ap- 
pears to be bread and wine, but in truth it is the body 
and blood of Jesus Christ. For, Almighty God con- 
descending to our weakness, and seeing that we are 
not accustomed to eat crude flesh and to drink blood, 
has ordered that the things offered should continue in 
their previous form, although they are in reality the 
body and the blood of Christ. ... As the divinity of 
the Word is one, though it fills the whole universe, so 
likewise, although this body is consecrated in many 
places and on an infinite number of days, it does not 
constitute many bodies of Christ nor many bloods, 

* Tract, de Corp. et Sang. Domini, 
f De Sacris Ordinibus, L. vii. c. x. 



ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



31 



but one and the same body and blood, which our 
Lord took in the womb of the Virgin, and which he 
gave to his Apostles."* 

All these authors lived during the course of the 
ninth century; the following names will serve as wit- 
nesses for the tenth and eleventh centuries. 

Batherins, bishop of Verona, writes as follows : 
" Believe, dear brother, that exactly as in Cana of 
Galilee, water became, by the command of God, true 
and not figurative w T ine, — so here wine, by the divine 
blessing, becomes true and not figurative blood, and 
bread becomes flesh. Although the color and the 
taste remain, believe that it is the real flesh and blood 
of the Lordj being assured of this mystery by Truth 
itself, "t 

The belief of St. Dunstan, archbishop of Canter- 
bury, and of the Anglo-Saxon Church, is made mani- 
fest from what Osbertus relates of that holy prelate : 
" Having returned to the altar, he (St. Dunstan) 
changed by the immaculate benediction, the bread 
and wine into the body and blood of Christ. When 
the moment arrived to bless the people, wishing to 
address them again, he again withdrew from the altar, 
and being filled with the Spirit of God, he spoke 
so eloquently of the reality of Christ's body, of the 
future resurrection and eternal life, that one might 
have taken him for an inhabitant of the heavenly Jeru- 
salem. ? 't 

St. Fulbert, bishop of Chartres, has the following- 
words: 4 'It is a crime to doubt whether He who cre- 
ated all things out of nothing, can, by the same om- 



* In Expos. Missa?. f Epist, ad Patric. Sacerd, 

pin Vit. St. Dunst. 



32 



PERPETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH 



nipotence, change the earthly nature of the bread and 
wine into the substance of his body; since he says 
himself, this is my body, this is my blood."* 

When Berengarius began, about the year 1035, to 
preach his errors concerning the Eucharist, Jldelman, 
formerly his fellow-disciple, wrote to him from Ger- 
many thus : " A rumor has been spread that you have 
separated yourself from the unity of the Church, and 
that you hold a doctrine contrary to the Catholic faith 
about the body of the Lord, which is every day immo- 
lated throughout all the world upon the holy altar, "t 

A still more celebrated adversary of Berengarius, 
LanfranC) pressed him with this cogent argument, 
founded upon the same notorious fact just alluded to, 
and which the bold innovator himself did not venture 
to deny : 46 If that be true which you assert about the 
body of Christ, then must that be false which the 
Church every where believes and teaches on the same 
subject. For, all those who are and who glory in being 
Christians, glory likewise in receiving the true flesh 
and the true blood of Christ, both taken from the Vir- 
gin. Ask all those of the -'Latin tongue, ask the 
Greeks, the Armenians, in a word, the Christians of 
every nation ? all unanimously testify that such is 
their belief. And now, if the belief of the universal 
Church be erroneous, either there never was a Catho- 
lic Church, or it has perished, since there is nothing 
more effectual in producing the ruin of souls, than a 
pernicious error. But to assert that the Church either 
never was or has perished, is anti -Catholic, anti- 
Christian, and a sacrilegious presumption. Therefore 
the error is on your side. Therefore, again, it is the 

* Epist. ad. Adcodat t F-pist. ad Berengarium>. 



ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



S3 



true flesh of Christ which we eat, and his true blood 
which we drink.''* 

The testimony of the Greek writers who lived dur- 
ing those ages, fully confirms what Lanfranc here 
asserts of the belief of oriental nations. Among the 
writings of Theodorus Abucara, metropolitan of the 
province of Caria, the following passage is found: 
" The priest lays on the holy table the bread and 
wine, and invokes the Holy Ghost; and the Holy 
Ghost comes down upon the things offered, and by the 
power of the Divinity, changes the bread and wine 
into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. 5 ' — We find 
likewise in Euthymius, a learned Basilian monk, these 
remarkable words on the twenty-sixth chapter of the 
Gospel of St. Matthew: ' 'He (Christ) did not say, 
these are the signs of my body and blood ; but, this is 
my body, this is my blood, . . . As he deified, as it 
were, the flesh which he had taken, so he changes 
these elements into his own vivifying body." 

We might adduce a vast number of similar testimo- 
nies from other writers, whether Greek or Latin; e. g. 
Petrus Siculus, Theophilactus, Guitmundus, Algerus 
of Liege, Hugh of Langres, Durand of Troarn, etc.; 
also from the liturgies used as well during those ages, 
as before and after, the Roman , Ambrosian, Greek, 
Syriac, etc., all of which mention the real presence of 
Christ in the Eucharist, and the transition or change of 
the eucharistic elements into his sacred body and blood : 
yet, we believe it quite unnecessary to carry our 
proofs any further, as no one, ever so little acquainted 
with ecclesiastical history, can deny that, when Be- 
rengarius towards the middle of the eleventh century 

* De Corp. et Sang. Dom., c. 22. 23, 

4 



34 PERPETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH 

began to preach a different doctrine, the whole Church 
so unanimously rose against him, that there was not a 
single town engaged in his party, and that he himself 
was repeatedly compelled to abjure his errors.* From 
this time forward, the publicity of the belief of all 
Catholics throughout the world; the repeated condem- 
nation of the Berengarian novelty \ the decrees of the 
general Councils of Lateran, Constance, Florence and 
Trent, do not admit even of the slightest doubt, and, 
in addition to the preceding uninterrupted series of au- 
thorities from the ancient Fathers, Doctors and Coun- 
cils, they establish conclusively the fact, that the doc- 
trine of the real presence and transubstantiation has 
been, from the primitive ages and in accordance with 
the words of Christ and the preaching of the Apostles, 
constantly believed, professed and taught by the 
Catholic Church, exactly as it is at present, 

* His most solemn recantation took place in a council held at 
Home (A.D. 1079,) where he consented to make the following 
profession of faith, in presence of the Pope and of one hundred and 
fifty bishops : " I, Berengarius, believe from my heart and confess 
with my lips, that the bread and wine laid on the table are, through 
the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of our Redeemer, 
changed into the true, real and vivifying flesh, and into the blood of 
our Lord Jesus Christ; and that after the consecration, it is his true 
body, which w T as born of the Virgin, was offered on the cross for 
the redemption of mankind, and sitteth at the right hand of the 
Father ; and the true blood of Jesus Christ, which flowed from his 
side. This I do believe, and I will teach nothing to the contrary; 
so help me God, and his holy Gospel." — Whether Berengarius was 
sincere in speaking thus, may be a matter of doubt ; this at least is 
certain, that the formula proposed to him contained the plain doc- 
trine of the Church, and that he was obliged to profess it, in order 
to be held orthodox. 



ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



35 



CHAPTER II. 

IMPOSSIBILITY OF A CHANGE HAVING TAKEN 
PLACE IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE CATHOLIC 
CHURCH. 

Let us now come to the second argument by which 
we promised to demonstrate the perpetuity of the 
Catholic faith on the Eucharist, viz., the impossibility 
of any change having ever taken place in the doctrine 
of the Church. In fact, since the dogma of the real 
presence and transubstantiation was firmly believed by 
all Christians in the middle of the eleventh century ; 
since, on the other hand, our opponents assert, although 
quite contrary to historical truth, that this dogma was 
not known and believed before nor even during the 
ninth century : — a change in the doctrine of the Church, 
or, in other words, a transition of all Christians from 
the non-belief to the belief of the real presence and 
transubstantiation, must, in that system, have taken 
place in the interval which elapsed between the latter 
part of the ninth and the first part of the eleventh cen- 
tury; and this is really the period which Protestants 
commonly assign as the epoch of the pretended inno- 
vation. But, how many absurdities are implied in 
this admission, in whatever respect it may be con- 
sidered ! 

I. Constant experience, history and the very nature 
of the human heart, concur in showing how difficult it 
is to induce even a limited number of persons to ex- 
change the religious opinions in which they were edu- 
cated, for doctrines opposed to them; especially when 



36 PERPETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH 

the former are easy and in accordance with the senses 
or prejudices of men, while the latter, on the contrary, 
contain mysteries calculated alike to humble the pride 
of reason and to check the various passions of the 
heart. Much greater still is the difficulty, if such a 
change of belief is to be effected among a large portion 
of the people ; and though the attempt may perhaps in 
some countries be really carried into execution, it is 
impossible, at least, that this should take place with- 
out a vast deal of remonstrance and opposition from 
the defenders of the ancient faith, particularly from 
those whose interest or bounden duty it is to arrest 
the progress of the innovation. This has always been 
the case, whenever a novelty in matters of religion 
was broached, and began to be spread among the 
faithful of any country. Without mentioning the long 
strifes formerly occasioned in the Church by the 
Arian, Pelagian, Donatist, Nestorian and Eutychian 
heresies ; who is unacquainted with the innumerable 
and lasting disturbances which have been produced in 
later ages by the principles of the Protestant reforma- 
tion, as well as the mighty opposition which they met 
with in their progress, although they were much less 
hostile to human passions than was the ancient belief 
which they attacked? And would it have been just 
the reverse with regard to the pretended innovation 
about the Eucharist? Would all Christians without 
exception and in a short time, have divested them- 
selves of their natural and religious feelings, to admit 
a new doctrine, the most opposed to the senses and 
imagination that can be conceived? Would they have 
admitted it as a part of the divine revelation given by 
Christ to his Church, whilst (as necessarily follows 



ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



37 



from the Protestant system,) it was to their own 
knowledge a mere novelty, and not a word had been 
heard of it before? In fine, would they have adopted 
it without difficulty, without trouble, without opposi- 
tion and protestation, as must be supposed in this 
case, since nothing of the kind can be discovered to 
have taken place in those times; and whilst the author, 
the rise and the progress of every heresy, even on 
much less important points, have been carefully no- 
ticed in every age$ here on the contrary, by a strange 
overthrow of the moral laws which govern mankind, 
both the fact and the circumstances of the supposed 
change of doctrine were immediately buried in perfect 
oblivion? What can be imagined more preposterous 
and incredible? 

Indeed, if the belief of the Incarnation and other 
mysteries of the Christian faith, could not be spread 
and established throughout the world but by the inces- 
sant labors of the Apostles and of their successors in 
the ministry, by the innumerable miracles of those 
holy men, by the sufferings and death of millions of 
martyrs, by encountering during the space of three 
hundred years, the most violent and bloody persecu- 
tions, as is attested by all ancient monuments, whether 
sacred or profane; what reasonable man will ever 
admit that the dogma of transubstantiation and of the 
real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is not 
less opposed to human pride and prejudices than the 
other mysteries of religion, was preached for the first 
time during, and unanimously adopted within a short 
time after the ninth century, without the aid of mira- 
cles, without the testimony of martyrs, without any 

disturbance, without opposition or protestation; in 

4* 



38 



PERrETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH 



a word, so easily and quietly, that no mention, no 
vestige of such events can be found in any record? 

II. The better to appreciate such a theory, let us 
consider more in particular the manner in which this 
pretended change of doctrine about the Eucharist is, 
by our ^adversaries, supposed to have happened. We 
do not think that any of them will ever assert that it 
was effected suddenly and every where at once ; e. g. 
that both the pastors and the faithful, having one night 
fallen asleep with Protestant convictions, awoke the 
next morning with the unrestricted admission of the 
Catholic doctrine, without ever after remembering their 
former belief. This is so manifestly absurd, that no 
one enjoying the use of reason can be deemed capable 
of making an assertion of the kind. Hence the gene- 
rality of Protestants have imagined another sort of 
innovation ; one, slow in its progress, and daily ad- 
vancing without being much noticed. They suppose, 
for instance, that Paschasius Radbertus, whom they 
generally call the originator of the doctrine of transub- 
stantiation, at first communicated it to a few trusty 
friends; these, by their exertions, increased the number 
of its admirers ; it began to spread far and wide; it 
afterwards divided the Christian world into two nearly 
equal portions, and at length became so prevalent 
every where, as to leave no remains, nor even any 
vestiges of the ancient faith. x 

This is truly a wonderful tale; but where are the 
evidences of its truth? Upon what foundation is 
it built? By what historical testimony or literary 
document is it supported? Whilst even frivolous 
objects and trifling events are daily recorded amongst 
men, how could it happen that a change of doctrine 



ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



39 



about the Eucharist, a point so momentous and so 
intimately connected with the very vitals of Chris- 
tianity, should not have produced a powerful impres- 
sion on the public mind, and be carefully noticed by 
the contemporary writers? According to the fanciful 
story itself, the immediate and unavoidable effect of 
this progress of the pretended novelty would have 
been to split all the members of the Church into 
two very distinct parties, the one adopting the rising 
belief of the dogma of transubstantiation, and the 
other continuing to reject it for a certain time. This 
opposition of sentiments should have been found in 
every Christian country, in every religious order, 
in every congregation, in every town or village, and 
frequently among the inmates of the same dwelling. 
In the mean while, all would have acted up to their 
respective belief, some adoring the sacred body and 
blood of Christ as truly present in the Eucharist, and 
others viewing the doctrine and practice in no other 
light than that of a capital error and superstition. 
In such a state of things, would not dissensions, 
disputes and quarrels have arisen every where, and 
would it have been possible for the supposed novelty 
to be spread and established throughout the whole 
world without any sign or document being left of the 
innumerable disturbances which must necessarily have 
been the consequence? 

III. And let it not be said that the tenth century 
having been a very dark age, in which ignorance every 
where prevailed, it was easy for an innovator to make 
the people adopt any notions that he might wish to 
intrude upon them : to assert this would be wrong in 
the extreme. In the first place, it does not account 
in the least for the monstrous phenomenon of a most 



40 



PERPETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH 



important change having occurred, without being no- 
ticed and mentioned by the writers of that age ; a 
silence and neglect the more incomprehensible, as the 
eleventh century, which Protestants have no reason to 
laud more than the tenth, has left us innumerable 
monuments of the disturbances excited by the attacks 
of Berengarius against the dogma of t ran substantiation? 
and of the opposition which his doctrine of the real 
absence every where met with; so far that, besides 
being refuted by a multitude of learned bishops and 
doctors, Lanfranc, Guitmond, Algerus, etc., it was 
condemned by no fewer than fifteen councils? held 
within the space of forty or fifty years in various 
parts of Christendom. Yet, it is self-evident that the 
task assumed by Berengarius was far easier, and more 
agreeable to man's limited reason and depraved senses, 
than would have been an attempt to introduce among 
the faithful the belief of transubstantiation, if it had 
been previously unknown among tliem. Much more 9 
then, would this attempt have been opposed, and the 
whole history of so momentous a-fact carefully noticed, 
to be transmitted with its various incidents to the latest 
posterity. 

Again, we know that the words of Christ himself? 
<6 "the bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life 
of the world. • . . For my flesh is meat indeed, and 
my blood is drink indeed ; 55 * plain as they were, and 
supported by our Saviour's miracles and undeniable 
sanctity, found numerous gainsayers among his hearers, 
and even among his disciples, whom he therefore suf- 
fered to depart from him and to follow their own blind 
and rebellious reason. t What then would it have 



* John vh 52, 56. 



f Ibid. 53, 61, 67. 



ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



41 



been, if a mere man, an impostor, had ventured to 
preach the same doctrine for the first time in the lapse 
of succeeding ages? Ignorance, however prevalent, 
would by no means have prevented a powerful opposi- 
tion to that doctrine, had it been new in the Church. 
Ignorant persons are indeed more easily induced than 
others, to embrace those novelties which favor and 
gratify their cupidity, their sensuality, or their pride; 
and this is, in reality, what chiefly promoted the rapid 
growth of Protestantism in Germany and several other 
states of the north of Europe; but there are none more 
obstinate than persons of this description, in shutting 
their ears, their eyes and their hearts against any 
thing opposed to their prejudices, their customs and 
their disorderly passions. And now, what could be 
more effectual in opposing a check to all vicious habits 
or propensities, than the doctrine and belief of the 
substantial presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist, 
since its immediate consequence is the necessity of 
self-denial and great purity of conscience, to comply 
in a worthy manner with the divine precept of partici- 
pating in the Eucharistic banquet, and of receiving 
within us the immaculate body and blood of our Blessed 
Redeemer? 

Nay, — it might justly be said that, in many respects, 
no period of the Church was ever less adapted to a 
change in religious doctrine than the tenth century. 
For, never perhaps was there an age of stronger and 
more lively faith ; none in which the feelings of men 
were more perfectly identified with religion. Religion, 
as we learn from the history of those times, was then 
readily preferred to all other things; the Christians of 
the middle ages entertained for it the same affection 
and devotion that the ancient Greeks and Romans sq 



42 PERPETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH 

often displayed for the defence of their liberty, and, 
to use the expressions of a great poet : 

" On comprenait alors, mieux qif au siecle ou nous sommes, 
Que Pinteret des hommes, 
Ne doit point balancer la querelle des cieux." * 

How could it have been possible that men of this cha- 
racter, so firmly attached to the religious doctrines in 
which they had been raised, should have suffered them 
to be driven from their hearts and minds by a creed of 
new formation, and by opinions unknown to their 
fathers? If the heresies of Eutyches and Nestorius 
about the Incarnation of the Son of God met, at the 
very moment of their appearance, with such powerful 
opposition among the cold-hearted Greeks, what would 
have been, among the much more eager and zealous 
Christians of Western Europe, the fate of the bold 
innovator concerning the equally important point of 
the Eucharist? 

IV. Moreover, the darkness and ignorance imputed 
to the tenth century, is far from having been as pro- 
found and universal as is commonly asserted. What- 
ever may be said by those who are interested in repre- 
senting it as an age of barbarism, there was even then, 
a large number of celebrated schools, v. g. those of 
Worms, Oxford, Paris, Lyons, &c, where both sacred 
and profane letters were taught with success. There 
existed in that very age several Popes conspicuous for 
their learning and piety, such as Gregory V., Leo 
VII., Sylvester IL, etc.; many illustrious and holy pre- 
lates, St. Brunon, archbishop of Cologne; St. Adalbert, 
bishop of Prague; St. Ulric, bishop of Augsburg; St. 
Odo and St. Dunstan, archbishops of Canterbury;-— 



* J. B. Rousseau, Ode against the Turks. 



ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



43 



many scholars, if not distinguished for their literary 
refinement, at least remarkable for their sound judg- 
ment and their knowledge of the sacred sciences 
Ratherius, bishop of Verona; St. Notker, the monk 
of St. Gall; St. Odo, abbot of Cluny; Atto, bishop of 
Vercelli; Luitprand, bishop of Cremona; Flodoardus, 
canon of Rheims;— many pious kings and emperors, 
Alfonso the Great, and Ramirus II., in Spain; Ed- 
ward, Athelstan, and Edgar, in England ; St. Wen- 
ceslas, in Bohemia; Henry I. and Otto the Great, in 
Germany ; — many zealous and learned missionaries, 
who successfully preached the Gospel among the seve- 
ral tribes of eastern and northern Europe, and to 
whose apostolic labors, the Sclavonians, the Poles, the 
Normans, the Danes, the Russians, the Hungarians, 
were indebted alike for their conversion to Christianity, 
and the solid beginnings of their civilization. 

This having been the case in the tenth century, who 
can conceive the possibility of a new belief concerning 
the Eucharist having been introduced into the Church, 
without provoking a general outcry of indignation, 
remonstrance and opposition? Were the many vir- 
tuous and distinguished personages whom we have 
just mentioned, suddenly changed into beings of quite 
a different character; devoid of all reason, religion, 
and piety ; so stupid as not to perceive the extraordi- 
nary and anti-Christian change of doctrine that was 
taking place all around them; so senseless as not to 
consider it sufficiently important to be resisted ; so 
careless for the glory of God and the salvation of 
souls, so basely unfaithful to their duty in this two- 
fold respect, as to connive first at the progress of the 
imposture, then gradually unite their own efforts with 
the exertions of its first propagators, and thus positive- 



44 PERPETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH 

ly concur in promoting the success of the impious 
innovation? Wonderful indeed must be the credulity 
that can admit such a complete and universal ship- 
wreck of rational and religious feeling. 

V. This is not, however, the last nor the most per- 
plexing difficulty to be found in the system which we 
are now discussing ; its abettors have still to account 
for the origin of that unanimous belief in the real pre- 
sence and transubstantiation, which we have already 
said and shall abundantly prove afterwards to exist as 
well among the schismatic Greeks, the Eutychians and 
the Nestorians, as among Catholics. During the tenth 
century, the Greek schism, which had been com- 
menced under Photius in the century before, was 
awaiting but a pretext, and, as it were, a single spark 
to be revived and consummated; whilst the Nestorian 
and Eutychian parties, that had now been separated 
from both the Greeks and the Latins for five or six 
hundred years, persisted as sternly as ever in their 
opposition to the Church which had condemned their 
errors. Would all these have consented to receive 
from that Church the profane novelty of a dogma un- 
known to their fathers about the Eucharist? Would 
they not rather have rejected it with scorn, and gladly 
availed themselves of the favorable opportunity thus 
presented to them of lodging a just accusation against 
the Catholic body? But there is nowhere to be found 
even the shadow of an accusation of this kind ; on the 
contrary, it was against the enemies of transubstantia- 
tion themselves that they launched all their anathemas, 
both when the Protestants of Qermany solicited their 
alliance in 1574, and when the Huguenots of France 
accused them, about one hundred years later, of hold- 
ing a doctrine different from that of Catholics in refer- 



ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



45 



ence to the holy Eucharist. Let therefore our adver- 
saries explain how and when these various oriental 
sects consented to adopt the pretended novelty which, 
in the Protestant system, w 7 as broached by the Latins 
during: the dark ages. Let them tell from what source 
the dissenting Christians of Greece, Asia and Africa de- 
rived their belief of transubstantiation, and of the true, 
real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucha- 
rist, if not from the doctrine of the Apostles and the 
faith of that primitive Catholic Church of which they 
were once members. 

VI. vSuch are the numerous contradictions and insu- 
perable difficulties to be encountered in the admission 
of a doctrinal change having taken place in the Church 
on the nature of the holy Eucharist, whether during 
the tenth century, or at any other period. These last 
words we purposely add, and with very just reason; 
because the many arguments by which we have just 
proved that this change did not and could not have 
taken place in the tenth century, prove exactly the 
same and with equal strength for every other age. 

In effect, the silence of all historians and writers 
concerning an innovation which, had it really hap- 
pened, would have been so important to all, should 
not be deemed less incredible in reference to other 
periods of time, than in reference to the tenth century. 
Likewise, that universal oblivion of the ancient doc- 
trine, which must be supposed to have pervaded the 
whole earth; that inconceivable medley of abettors 
and enemies of transubstantiation, all blended together 
and living in perfect harmony, so as never to break 
the bonds of unity and peace; that extinction of all 
rational and religious feelings, which a doctrinal change 

o o 7 o 

thus effected necessarily supposes: in a word, all the 



46 PERPETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH 



essential circumstances which rendered this change 
impossible during the tenth century, rendered it equal- 
ly impossible in every other epoch. Since, then, the 
impossibility of a religious innovation during the tenth 
century has been superabundantly proved, the same 
must be admitted to be equally proved for every other 
period. 

The more so, as the results or consequences of a 
change of religious doctrine, are not arbitrary conse- 
quences; but they are moral effects, uniformly and 
invariably arising from passions and feelings common 
to all men. They cannot be denied, without ridicu- 
lously supposing that all men conspired in quietly 
giving up these natural feelings and passions, so as to 
act in this affair after a manner diametrically opposite 
to the course which they follow in all other affairs. 

In order, then, to prove that a change of belief 
was utterly impossible at any period of Church his- 
tory which our separated brethren may choose to as- 
sign; it is sufficient to lay down as an undeniable 
principle, that the men of all ages previous to us had 
the same nature and the same passions with ourselves. 
This is the only fact which we stand in need of, to 
form an invincible argument; and as this single fact 
is evident of itself, it carries along with it all the irre- 
sistible force of the intended demonstration. 

It is certain, therefore, that the reasons which have 
been adduced to prove the impossibility of a change in 
the doctrine of the Catholic Church, are applicable to 
all periods of time whatever, and equally convincing 
for every age, past, present or future. 

This may be illustrated by a comparison. 

"Whoever demonstrates in mathematics the qualities 
of a triangle, demonstrates them alike for all triangles; 



ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 



47 



whether actually existing or possible; because the evi- 
dences upon which he based his conclusion for one of 
them, equally belong to every other. The case is 
exactly the same, though the object is different, with 
regard to the impossibility of an innovation in the 
doctrine of the Catholic Church; our arguments to this 
effect being founded on the uniform and invariable 
order of moral laws inherent to our nature, will not be 
less convincing, whatever age may be substituted for 
the tenth century, and this newly assigned period, 
besides affording the same general proofs as above, 
will perhaps furnish us with some particular ones not 
less forcible than all the rest.* 

Let us add to this, that the faith of the Church is, 
by the promises of Christ and the very nature of her 
constitution^ like one closely linked and unbroken 
chain. It is utterly impossible for novelties to find a 
place in it. Therefore, no such change ever happened, 
as our adversaries like so much and so liberally to 
suppose. Therefore, again, the doctrine of the real 
presence and transubstantiation, which was taught and 
believed throughout all Christendom, when Zuinglius, 
Luther and Calvin appeared, had been also the doc- 
trine of all previous ages, ever since the beginning of 
Christianity; the doctrine of the Fathers and Apostles; 
the doctrine of Christ himself, transmitted to us, 
through an uninterrupted succession, with all those 
infallible marks of a sacred origin to which our reason 
should submit without the least hesitation, and whose 
paramount authority must destroy 64 every height that 
exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and 

* See Perpetuite de lafoi, vol. i. pp. 785 — 786. 
t Matt, xviii. 20; Eph. iv. 11 — 16. 



48 PERPETUITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH. 

bring into captivity every understanding to the obedi- 
ence of Christ."* 

How frail, then, and how very insecure is the super- 
structure based on the theory of that imaginary change 
of doctrine about the Eucharist, which the leaders of 
Protestantism assert at all hazards to have once hap- 
pened! How weak and groundless must be that cause, 
which finds itself obliged to rest upon such a support! 
This is, in fact, the only conclusion to which all the 
efforts made by the enemies of transubstantiation can 
lead the sincere inquirer. What can be said, when 
he sees them, in opposition to the overwhelming mass 
of authorities and arguments which prove, as plainly 
as can be desired, the Apostolical origin and the per- 
petuity of the Catholic faith, preferring the obscure 
expressions of an obscure writer of the ninth or tenth 
century; expressions, too, which have been repeated- 
ly proved to be of no real service to their cause ? 
What can be said of a course of this description, if 
not that it is the desperate effort of an agonizing sys- 
tem? And who is the person, in the least mindful of 
the future destiny of his immortal soul, and convinced 
of the necessity of the true faith for salvation, that" 
will remain attached to sucli a system, or be willing 
to stake upon it his eternal welfare! 



* 2 Corinth, x. 5, 



PART II. 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE AND TRANSUB- 
STANTIATION. 

From what has been said in the first part of this 
treatise, it is evident that the question about the holy 
Eucharist, is already decidedly settled in favor of 
Catholics; for, that must necessarily be true, which 
was always believed from the beginning by the Church 
of Christ, since she is ' 'the pillar and ground of the 
truth,"* and the house of God built upon a rock, 
44 against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. 59 1 
However, as the object of this first part was rather to 
establish the fact of the perpetuity of the Catholic 
faith, than to deduce its consequences; and as, more- 
over, there is in support of the real presence and tran- 
substantiation, a quantity of evidence which could not 
be properly introduced in the beginning of the contro- 
versy, we shall now produce it successively in four 
distinct chapters. The first will contain the proofs 
from Scripture; the second, those from Tradition; 
the third, those from the unanimous belief of all Chris- 
tian societies upon earth, except the Protestants; in 
fine, the fourth and last chapter, after answering the 
objections usually brought against our doctrine on the 



* 1 Tim. iii. 15. 

5* 



f Matt. xvi. 18. 



50 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



Eucharist, will conclude with the words of the Coun- 
cil of Trent relative to this unspeakable blessing and 
mystery, which Christ has left to his Church to be 
perpetuated in it, through an uninterrupted succession 
of bishops and priests, till the end of the world, 

CHAPTER I. 

PROOFS FROM SCRIPTURE. 

The holy Scripture affords us a three-fold evidence 
of the Catholic dogma concerning the Eucharist. We 
have, 1. the words of the promise, in St. John vi.; — 
2. those of the institution, related by St. Matthew 
xxvi., St. Mark xiv., and St. Luke xxii.; — and 3. 
those of St. Paul relative to the reception of this great 
Sacrament, 1 Corinth, xi. Before, however, we enter 
upon this series of arguments, it will not be amiss to 
premise a few general remarks on the subject. 

Of all the actions and discourses of our Lord, during 
the time 4 6 he was seen upon earth, and conversed with 
men," (Baruch iii. 38,) we find but few unanimously 
recorded by the four evangelists. His public life, his 
preaching and his miracles at large, his passion, his 
death and his resurrection; these are nearly all the 
facts that we read alike in the four gospels. His 
genealogy, his ascension, etc. are mentioned only in 
two of them ; many other important events are record- 
ed only by one, for instance, the Annunciation, by 
St. Luke; the flight into Egypt, together with the 
circumstances which preceded and followed it, by St. 
Matthew; the cure of the blind man of Bethsaida, 
by St. Mark ; the miracle of Cana in Galilee, the 
resurrection of Lazarus, and Christ's discourse to his 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



51 



disciples after the last supper, by St. John. It was 
not, undoubtedly, without a just cause that the Holy 
Ghost so guided the pen of the sacred writers, as to 
cause certain words or actions of our Lord to be thus 
related, sometimes by one only, and sometimes by two 
or three of the Evangelists. With still greater reason 
may we believe that there was an especial and a strong 
motive for inducing them all to mention the same fact, 
particularly when this fact was not necessarily con- 
nected with the other parts of our Saviour's life and 
passion. 

Let us apply this to the Holy Eucharist. Its insti- 
tution is expressly recorded by St. Matthew, St. 
Mark, and St. Luke. St. John, according to his well 
known intent to omit in his Gospel many things suffi- 
ciently mentioned by the other Evangelists, and vice 
versa, to mention many others not spoken of by them, 
does not describe the institution itself, but relates at 
full length the solemn promise which Christ had 
made, two years before, of that admirable and divine 
blessing. Nor is this all ; St. Paul, who in his epis- 
tles, does not commonly refer in an historical man- 
ner to any part of our Saviour's life, makes an excep- 
tion for the Eucharist, and relates the manner, the 
time and other circumstances in which it had been 
instituted, declaring at the same time that he had 
received the doctrine which he taught from our Lord 
himself; (see 1 Corinth, xi. 23 — 25.) 

Now, what does this unanimity of the sacred writers 
give us to understand? Whilst several momentous 
events relating to Christ and to his religion, are found 
in no more than one or two places of the inspired 
writings ; whilst many others, as St. John declares at 
the end of his his gospel, have not been written at all ; 



52 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



how has it happened that the Eucharist is recorded 
and described at full length in five or six different 
places of the New Testament? — This indeed is inex- 
plicable in the system of Protestants, who do not 
admit the real and substantial presence of Christ in 
the Eucharist; for surely, the weak and insignificant 
figures or symbols to which they confine their belief, 
were not worth the trouble of being so carefully de- 
scribed by the several inspired writers of the new law. 
But in the doctrine of Catholics and the belief of tran- 
substantiation, the answer to the above question is 
perfectly obvious and satisfactory. It was worthy of 
God's wisdom, that the most dignified and most holy 
of all sacraments, one in which he gives, not only 
grace, but even himself to his creatures, should be 
frequently presented in Holy Writ to the pious recol- 
lection of the faithful. It was proper that a mystery 
which is so much above the dictates of our senses, a 
mystery to be daily renewed in the Church, and which 
Christ foresaw would be so violently attacked in the 
course of ages 5 should be repeatedly inculcated, not 
only by the unanimous voice of Tradition, but also by 
the inspired words of all the Evangelists. In fine, it 
was just that the words of our Saviour concerning 
this prodigy of his love, should be carefully recorded 
and found in many places of the New Testament, in 
order to leave no room for doubt or cavil about their 
literal meaning, and the better to strengthen the belief 
and excite the gratitude of the faithful throughout all 
ages. 



AND TRANSTJBSTANTIATION\ 



53 



SECTION L 

WORDS OF THE PROMISE. 

These being premised by way of general illustra- 
tion, let us see the particular proofs of the real pre- 
sence and transubstantiation, which are afforded us by 
the holy Scripture. The first is taken from the words 
in which Christ, in accordance with his usual plan of 
foretelling the great mysteries which he intended after- 
wards to perform, predicted the institution of the Eu- 
charist, This promise was made by him after the 
miracle of the multiplication of five loaves in the 
desert, and is thus recorded by the Apostle St. John, 
vi. 51 — 69: 

" 51. I am the living bread, which came down from 
heaven. 

52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for 
ever: and the bread which I will give, is my flesh for 
the life of the world. 

53. The Jews, therefore, debated among themselves, 
saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 

54. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say 
unto you : Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, 
and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 

55. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, 
hath everlasting life ; and I will raise him up at the 
last day. 

56. For my flesh is meat indeed : and my blood is 
drink indeed. 

57. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, 
abideth in me, and I in him. 



54 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



58. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live 
by the Father ; so he that eateth me, the same also 
shall live by me. 

59* This is the bread that came down from heaven. 
Mot as your fathers did eat manna, and died. He 
that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 

60* These things he said teaching in the synagogue, 
in Capharnaum. 

61. Many, therefore, of his disciples hearing it, 
said : This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 

62. But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples 
murmured at this, said to them : Doth this scandalize 
you? 

63. If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up 
where he was before? 

64. It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profit- 
eth nothing: the words that I have spoken to you, are 
spirit and life. 

65. But there are some of you that believe not. For 
Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did 
not believe, and who he was that would betray him. 

66. And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that 
no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my 
Father. 

67. After this many of his disciples went back, and 
walked no more with him. 

68. Then Jesus said to the twelve : Will you also 
go away? 

69. And Simon Peter answered him : Lord, to 
whom shall we go ? thou hast the words of eternal 
life." 

Such is the testimony of the beloved disciple con- 
cerning this important part of the public life of our 
Saviour. How consoling it is for Catholics to behold 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 



55 



their divine Lord himself lay with such care the solid 
foundation of their belief, and express, as plainly and 
forcibly as human language can do, the reality of his 
presence in the sacrament which he then promised to 
institute, and which he afterwards did institute the 
night before his passion ! 

In the first place, his words, considered in them- 
selves and according to their natural import, are clear 
and positive for the sense of the real presence. This 
was certainly the sense in which the Jews understood 
them from the beginning, since they asked: "How 
can this man give us his flesh to eat?' 5 and this was 
undoubtedly also the meaning intended by our Lord, 
since, instead of diminishing the force of his former 
expressions, he rather increased it by the addition of 
an oath or an asseveration equivalent to it, saying : 
" Amen, amen, I say unto you: Unless you eat the 
flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall 
not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and 
drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will 
raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat 
indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." Can lan- 
guage be stronger and more explicit than these words 
of our Blessed Saviour, to signify his intention of 
giving us his own sacred body and blood for our sanc- 
tification, our comfort and our eternal happiness? 

We must then acknowledge, that, if Christ had come 
upon earth not to instruct but to deceive, not to save 
but to seduce mankind, he could not have better suc- 
ceeded than by thus repeatedly asserting, even with 
an oath, what, in this injurious supposition, he did not 
mean, viz. the reality of his presence in the Eucha- 
rist. The result, too, for those among his hearers 
who entertained the greatest respect for him with an 



56 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



implicit reliance in whatever he said, must have been 
to throw them into an inevitable error about the true 
sense of his words. But what Christian can admit 
such a position and such a consequence? Would he 
not rather shudder to hear them attributed to the boun- 
tiful Saviour of mankind? 

This will appear still more manifest, if we consider 
the circumstances which accompanied the discourse of 
our Lord at Capharnaum. 1°. He did not begin to 
speak of the Eu char is tic mystery, until after he had 
performed the splendid miracle of the multiplication of 
loaves, and strongly inculcated the necessity of a steady 
faith in himself and in his words, particularly those re- 
lating to the heavenly food which he was about to promise 
them. " This is the work of God," he had said just 
before, " that you believe in him whom he hath sent. , . 
Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, 
hath everlasting life I am the bread of life." (John 
vi. 29, 47, 48.) But why, we may ask, did Christ 
use so many precautions, if, in promising to give us 
his flesh to eat and his blood to drink, he meant 
nothing else than weak and insignificant symbols of 
his flesh and blood, namely some bread and some 
wine? Does it require a manifestation of the divine 
power, to institute bare memorials like these, or such 
a steady faith as we see here inculcated, to believe, as 
Protestants do, that these two material elements re- 
main in the Eucharist what they were before? — 2°. 
Christ very positively declares that he places, and 
consequently that we also ought to place a much 
greater value upon the life-giving food which he here 
promises, than upon the manna that fed the Israelites 
in the desert; (John ib. 32, 33, 59.) But, in the doc- 
trine of those who deny the real presence, it should 



AND TRANS UBSTANTIATION. 



57 



be just the reverse, because the manna was, after all, 
a food far superior to ordinary aliments, both in its 
origin and in its effects, being prepared by a special 
providence of God for his chosen people, and "having 
in it all that is delicious and the sweetness of every 
taste;" neither of which can be said of the Eucharist, 
if it contains nothing else but bread and wine without 
any change of their substance. — 3°. Since, not only 
the Jews of Capharnaum, but also many of the disci- 
ples were scandalized at hearing our Lord say that he 
would give his flesh to eat ; in the supposition that 
thev mistook his meaning, he ought certainly to have 
removed the fatal mistake to which the whole series of 
his discourse had naturally given rise ; and since, on 
the other hand, he was incomparably zealous for the 
instruction and salvation of souls, he without doubt 
would have done it, by merely stating that he had 
spoken in figure and parable. But, instead of this, 
we see him upbraid them for their incredulity, in- 
crease their surprise by mentioning his future ascen- 
sion into heaven as far as his visible presence is con- 
cerned, and suffer them to depart from him for ever. 
Nay, he showed a willingness to let his very Apostles 
go away, if they also would not believe, rather than 
change a single iota in the heavenly doctrine which he 
had just delivered. Can this be thought possible? 
Can it be reconciled with the ideas which we must 
entertain of our Blessed Redeemer, and would not 
such a conduct on his part be far more incompre- 
hensible than the reality of his presence in the Eu- 
charist? 

And let it not be said, that he really did interpret his 
first expressions in a sense different from the Catholic 
interpretation, by adding: " It is the spirit that quick- 
6 



58 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



eneth; the flesh profiteth nothing ; the words that I have 
spoken to you, are spirit and life 5" expressions which, 
to the adversaries of the real presence appear to signify 
that the whole of Christ's discourse must be spiritually 
understood, and that all idea of his flesh being pre- 
sent in the Sacrament, ought to be discarded. — It is 
truly wonderful indeed, that these modern interpreters 
are able to bring themselves to believe that our Lord fell 
into such a contradiction with himself as to demolish 
his own work, and that by these words he intended to 
deny what he had just before so emphatically asserted. 
But still more wonderful, if they seriously attempt to 
prove that he did so, and whilst they themselves admit 
his sacred body to have been the precious victim of our 
redemption on the cross, would have us to consider it 
as ; 4 profiting nothing." 

This, therefore, cannot have been the meaning of 
Christ. In the passage just quoted, he does not say: 
"My flesh profiteth nothing;" having on the contrary 
declared it to be a life-giving flesh, " He that eateth 
my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting 
life. . . . For my flesh is meat indeed:" but the flesh 
of which he says that it 66 profiteth nothing" is flesh 
in general, dead and common flesh, such as probably 
the Jews had imagined he would give them to eat, 
such as is sold in markets and prepared by cooks to be 
served on our tables. Nay, our Saviour does not seem 
here to speak of human flesh at all, but of the pervert- 
ed reason and carnal apprehension of worldlings, which 
prevent them from submitting to the word of God and 
to the impulse of his grace. In effect, it is to be re- 
marked that, when the word flesh is used in the Scrip- 
ture in opposition to the word spirit, it does not signi- 
fy the substance of the flesh, but the sinners' carnal 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



59 



and sensual way of thinking .or acting, as in the fol- 
lowing instances: "3fy spirit shall not remain in man 
for ever, because he is flesh ;" (Gen. vi. 3.) "We 
walk not according to the flesh, but according to the 
spirit;" (Rom. viii. 4.) When therefore Christ said: 
66 It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth 
nothing," he did not mean his sacred flesh, nor even 
human flesh at all, but the carnal apprehension of 
most of his hearers, who presumed to reject a divine 
truth because it did not agree with their own notions ; 
whereas they ought to have believed it upon his formal 
asseveration, so well calculated and so sufficient by 
itself to give light, understanding and salutary per- 
suasion to their souls. This was in reality confirming 
what he had said before $ and hence the Jews, seeing 
that the literal meaning of his promise to give his flesh 
to eat, continued to be enforced, they also continued 
to be scandalized at it, so that from this time "many 
of his disciples went back, and walked no more with 
him." 

As to the twelve Apostles, more steady in their faith 
and more constant in their submission to the words 
and authority of Christ, they followed in his regard a 
very different course. Being asked by him whether 
they also would go away, they contented themselves 
with answering by the mouth of St. Peter: " Lord, to 
whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal 
life;" thus deserving, by this courageous perseverance 
in their belief, to obtain the grace of persevering also 
in his blessed company. 

The same exactly which happened 1800 years ago 
near Capharnaum, takes place at the present day in 
the controversy between Catholics and Protestants 
about the holy Eucharist. We hear the latter con- 



60 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



ti mi ally say: " How can a body be present at the 
same time in heaven, upon earth and in many places 
at once? How can it be contained in so small a space 
as a host or even a particle? How can bread be sub- 
stantially converted into flesh, and wine into blood, 
without any change in the the outward form; and how 
can the accidents or appearances of both the bread and 
wine subsist without their natural subjects?" Is not 
this the fatal how once pronounced by the Jews of 
Capharnaum and by those unfaithful disciples whom 
our Lord suffered to depart from him, when they said: 
"How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Do not 
Catholics on the contrary, imitate the example of the 
Apostles, by despising all these pretended difficulties, 
which indeed are nothing for Divine Omnipotence, and 
by giving full credit to him who " has the Words of 
eternal life," when he tells them, "the bread which I 

will give, is my flesh for the life of the world 

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink 
indeed?" — Let every one now judge which of these 
parties is preferable, which of the two is exclusively 
worthy of a sincere follower of the doctrines of revela- 
tion, and of a true disciple of Christ. 



SECTION II. 

WORDS OF THE INSTITUTION. 

The words and manner which our Saviour employed 
when he instituted the holy Eucharist, furnish us, if 
possible, with a still more powerful and more over- 
whelming proof of the real presence and transubstan- 
tiation. They are thus related in the Gospel of St. 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



61 



Matthew: u Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took 
bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to his disci- 
ples; and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body. 
And taking the chalice, he gave thanks ; and gave to 
them, saying: Drink ye all of this: For this is my 
blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for 
many for the remission of sins." * From these words, 
and a few others recorded by St. Luke as having been 
spoken by Christ on the same occasion, viz. " Do this 
for a commemoration of me;" we draw the following 
plain argument. 

It is evident, and will be easily admitted by all, 
that the expressions just cited, This is my body — 
this is my blood, etc., prove the real and substantial 
presence of Christ in the Eucharist, if they are to be 
understood, not in a figurative and metaphorical sense, 
as Protestants assert, but, as Catholics maintain, in 
their proper, natural and obvious meaning. Now, 
that they are to be understood in this proper, natural 
and obvious meaning, is equally evident from a variety 
of forcible considerations, out of which we select and 
shall propound six, in the following order : 

I. The object which our Blessed Saviour had in 
view in the institution of the holy Eucharist. 

II. The circumstances in which he instituted it. 

III. The principles of criticism universally admitted 
in the interpretation of Scripture. 

IV. The most unequivocal and necessary rules of 
language. 

V. The context and the whole tenor of the words 
themselves. 

* Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, 28 ; — See also Mark xiv. 22 — 24 ; — Luke 
xxii. 19, 20 ; — St. Paul, 1 Corinth, xi. 23 — 25. 

6* 



62 PROOFS THE REAL PRESENCE 

VI. The unanimous consent of the Fathers and the 
tradition of the whole Church from the earliest days of 
her existence. 

Any one of these considerations should be deemed 
sufficient to settle the point now before us; how much 
more so their collective strength and the immense 
weight accruing from their re-union ! — Let us come 
to particulars. 

I. The object which our Blessed Saviour had in 
view in the institution of the holy Eucharist, proves 
that his words must be taken, not in a figurative and 
metaphorical sense, but in their proper, natural and 
obvious meaning. This object was to propose a new 
article of belief and establish a Sacrament, as Protes- 
tants themselves admit; to enact a law, as we learn from 
St. Luke, (xxii. 19;) and to make his testament or last 
will, as all the Evangelists testify. But, all these 
things required to be expressed in plain words — words 
taken in their obvious and proper signification, without 
figures or metaphors. In effect, since dogmas are 
revealed for no other end than that they should be 
believed, the terms in which they are expressed must 
be simple and unambiguous, lest they should become an 
occasion of error for the sincere Christian himself; — 
this should especially be the case in the opinion of 
Protestants, who admit no other deposit of revelation 
and no other rule of faith than the Bible. Sacraments 
being likewise intended for the general use and advan- 
tage of the faithful, must contain nothing in the ex- 
pressions and manner in which they were established, 
that might cause them to degenerate easily into useless 
or superstitious practices. Hence all the Sacraments, 
both of the old and of the new law, were really insti- 
tuted and announced in the plainest and most une- 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATIOX. 



63 



quivocal language. Laios also must be expressed 
without metaphors, and, if possible, without the least 
shadow of ambiguity, not to give any just cause to 
those cavils and ill- interpretations which men are so 
apt to put even upon the wisest and best enactments. 
Hence all wise and prudent legislators, have ever 
taken the greatest care to deliver their injunctions to 
the people in the plainest and most natural style. But 
of all transactions of importance, a testament or last 
will is the one from which figurative and obscure ex- 
pressions ought to be most carefully removed, and in 
which not even the slightest pretence for dispute and 
misunderstanding, should be given. Civilians agree 
that the expressions in which a deed of this nature is 
couched, must be taken according to the letter. What 
would a Protestant say, if, instead of a house or an 
estate which has been positively bequeathed to him by 
a dying friend or parent, he were only to receive a 
picture representing the house or the estate? Would 
he not complain of the injustice, and loudly protest 
against the illegality of such a proceeding? The ap- 
plication of this to our present subject is most natural. 

We read in the Gospel the plain and formal expres- 
sions, by which Christ our Lord, the author of the new 
and everlasting testament, gave us his sacred body 
and blood for our comfort and supersubstantial nour- 
ishment; and behold, after the lapse of many centu- 
ries, Calvin, Zuinglius and their successors come for- 
ward, telling us that our Saviour intended to give us 
in the Eucharist nothing more than bread and wine, as 
symbols of his body and blood ! What is this, but to 
attribute to the Son of God an unworthy and base 
equivocation; one which we can hardly conceive even 
sinful man capable of, especially when preparing for 



64 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



the awful hour of death? What means, then, is left to 
remove so injurious a supposition? None, except to 
believe, as Catholics do, that our Saviour really in- 
tended to give what he expressly said he gave us by 
his last will, namely, his body and blood. 

II. This is also proved from the various circum- 
stances of action, time and persons in which Christ 
was placed, when he instituted the holy Eucharist. It 
was after the eating of the passover, one of the most 
striking and ancient figures of his own sacrifice ; it was 
the evening before his death, a few r moments before the 
beginning of his passion, and consequently such a time 
as would induce him to speak as clearly as possible, 
without figure and ambiguity ; it was to his beloved 
Apostles that he spoke, to those faithful disciples 
whom he called his children and friends, from whom 
he kept nothing secret, to whom, according to his own 
expression, it was granted 66 to know the mystery of 
the kingdom of God;" (Luke viii. 10;) to whom he had 
previously announced that he would give his flesh to 
eat and his blood to drink, and who were now prepared 
to receive without surprise, for the first time, the ac- 
complishment of his promise. Is it possible that, 
under these circumstances, Christ would have spoken 
in figurative terms of the great mystery which he was 
instituting; that he would have expressly mentioned 
the giving of his body and blood, if he meant nothing 
else but the figure of both; that he would have thus 
deceived his Apostles, whose docile and illiterate 
minds were certainly unable to conceive a meaning so 
contrary to the obvious and proper signification of his 
words; a meaning so abstruse, that it remained totally 
unknown and unheard of in the Church for a long 
series of ages; a meaning so unnatural, that Zuinglius 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



65 



did not discover it until after four years of perplexing 
labors, and even then did not dare openly to propose 
it, before he was encouraged in his design by the appa- 
rition of a spirit, whether black or w T hite, he could not 
tell;* whilst, on the other hand, Luther, however 
willing, never could prevail upon himself to admit 
such a rash metaphorical sense, seeing it contrary to 
the plain letter of our Saviour's expressions. t Let us 
ask once more; is it possible that this rash meaning, 
so unworthy at all times of the goodness and veracity 
of Christ, should have been intended by him for his 
faithful and beloved disciples, in his last discourse to 
them, and on so solemn an occasion as the eve of his 
death? Would not this be a far greater mystery than 
the real presence itself? 

III. Our next proof is taken from the rules of criti- 
cism universally admitted in the interpretation of 
Scripture; rules without which we would be exposed 
to a thousand errors and illusions about its true mean- 
ing, and which are followed, most of them, by Protes- 
tants themselves, when they have to argue against 
Universalists, Anabaptists, or Unitarians. As some 
of those rules will come afterwards under particular 
heads, for instance, in Nos. 5 and 6 of this very sec- 
tion, we will here content ourselves with the celebrated 
principle laid down by St. Augustine in his third book 
De Doctrind Christiana, and embraced unanimously 
by doctors, interpreters and divines; namely, that the 
words of Holy Writ must always be taken in their 
proper and obvious signification, unless other and 
clearer texts of Scripture, or some evident and incon- 
testable reason require a different meaning; otherwise, 



* Libr. De subsidio Eucharist. 



f Epist. ad Argentinenses. 



66 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



there would be nothing certain in the Bible, a conse- 
quence which surely our adversaries never will admit. 
Now, do any passages of the sacred volume contradict 
the obvious meaning of Christ's real presence in the 
Eucharist, which results from the words of the institu- 
tion? Far from it, we have on the contrary seen the 
very same truth clearly expressed in the sixth chapter 
of the Gospel according to St. John 3 nay, it is impos- 
sible for an attentive reader not to perceive the strict 
analogy and connection between both places, Christ 
saying in the one: "Unless you eat the flesh of the 
Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have 
life in you," (John vi. 54;) and in the other: "Take 
ye and eat: This is my body. — Drink ye all of this : 
For this is my blood. "* The same is likewise strong- 
ly inculcated by St. Paul in various places, for in- 
stance in these words: " The chalice of benediction 
which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood 
of Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the 

*We must here observe, with regard to the Communion under - 
both kinds, that the latter words were spoken to the twelve Apos- 
tles, who were the all then present ; and they all drank of it, says 
St. Mark, xiv. 23. But it by no means follows from these words 
spoken to the Apostles, that all the faithful are also commanded to 
drink of the chalice ; any more than that all the faithful are com- 
manded to consecrate, offer, and administer this sacrament, because 
Christ upon this same occasion and at the same time, bid the Apos- 
tles to do so, in these words : iS Do this in commemoration of me," 
(Luke xxii. 19.) It is indeed necessary, for the sacrifice, that 
priests should consecrate and receive the body and blood of our Sa- 
viour under both kinds, but the same is not necessary for the integ- 
rity of the Sacrament, since Christ, being no longer liable to suffer- 
ings and death, is contained whole and entire under each of the two 
species, as he himself says : " He that eateth me, the same also shall 
live by me;" (John vi. 58.) — See Council of Trent, Sess. xxi. ch. 
1—3. 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



67 



partaking of the body of the Lord?" (1 Corinth, x. 16.) 
Whence it is manifest that the different parts of the 
New Testament, instead of contradicting or weaken- 
ing, serve wonderfully to confirm the plain and obvious 
meaning of the real presence expressed in the words 
of the institution. 

We read, it is true, in the same sacred volume these 
other texts which our adversaries triumphantly object: 
" If any man shall say to you: Lo, here is Christ; or, 
Lo, he is there : do not believe. — The poor you have 
always with you : but me you have not always. — Again 
I leave the world, and I go to the Father. — And the 
Lord Jesus . . . was taken up into heaven, and sitteth 
on the right hand of God." — But, who does not per- 
ceive at once that these several passages mean the 
natural mode of existing and the visible presence of 
Christ; whilst his presence in the Eucharistic mystery, 
which his own words oblige us to admit, although per- 
fectly true and real, is supernatural and invisible; 
consequently there is no contradiction whatever be- 
tween them; since contradiction consists in asserting 
and denying the same thing of the same object consi- 
dered in the same light ; which is not the case here. 
"For" as the Council of Trent says, "there is no 
repugnance in these things, that Christ, according to 
his natural manner of existence, should always remain 
in heaven at the right hand of his Father; and that at 
the same time he should be sacramentally, though 
substantially present with us in many places. * 
vSince therefore the Scripture teaches us both these 
truths, both must be equally and unhesitatingly ad- 
mitted. 

* Cone. Trid. Sess. xiii. c, L 



j 



68 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



Nor is there any thing in the Eucharistic mystery, 
any more than in the other mysteries of religion, re- 
pugnant or perplexing to the mind of the sincere 
Christian. Every thing in it, on the contrary, is 
worthy of the greatness and munificence of God, and 
of the designs of his mercy for the sanctification of 
men; every thing in it proclaims, in the most wonder- 
ful manner, the omnipotence, the infinite wisdom, and 
the unspeakable goodness and condescension of our 
Lord towards us: 1. his omnipotence, which thus ren- 
ders the existence of corporeal elements subordinate 
and subservient to the preternatural order of religion, 
by changing, at the voice of priests commissioned by 
himself, the whole substance of the bread and wine 
laid on the altar into the substance of his precious 
body and blood. — 2. his infinite wisdom, which has 
devised this admirable means of reconciling two appa- 
rently opposite desires, the one, of returning to his 
Father's bosom; and the other, of really and substan- 
tially remaining with us till the end of ages, to be our 
support, our comfort, our viaticum; as he himself de- 
clares in other places that ' 'his delights are to be with 
the children of men;" that 6 'he will not leave us 
orphans, but come to us, and make an abode with 
us." *— 3. We have above all to admire in this most 
holy Sacrament, that unspeakable goodness, which in- 
duces him thus to communicate himself entirely to the 
souls of his servants, and that too, in the most amiable 
and condescending manner, namely, under the ap- 
pearance of an ordinary food, in order to remove the 
repugnance and excessive awe which might have other- 
wise prevented us from receiving him in his visible 



* Pro v. viii. 31.— 



John xiv. 18, 23, 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



09 



form and in the splendor of his majesty. — With re- 
gard to ourselves, the holy Eucharist is productive of. 
the most beneficial and salutary effects. Whilst we 
are, on the one hand, commanded to partake of this 
mystery from time to time at communion, we are, on 
the other, forbidden to approach it without great purity 
of conscience, that is to say, without an entire disen- 
gagement from at least every mortal sin, and a sin- 
cere determination to observe all the commandments. 
Hence, the dogma of transubstantiation, far from hav- 
ing any immoral tendency, as its opponents sometimes 
have not blushed to assert, produces effects entirely 
the reverse, and is the very best means to enforce 
morality, to subdue vicious inclinations, to maintain 
purity of soul and body, and to excite gratitude and 
love for our Blessed Redeemer. Nothing likewise 
can be more efficacious to console and support us amidst 
the many afflictions which assail us in this vale of 
tears, than to know and be assured by divine revela- 
tion, that we possess amongst us, really and substan- 
tially, though under the sacramental veil, the same 
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who is the eternal feli- 
city of the saints ; a thought the best calculated to in- 
duce us to 64 go from virtue to virtue," until we also 
enjoy his blessed sight and the full manifestation of his 
glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.* Not only then is it 
true, that there exists no reason for departing from the 
obvious and natural meaning of our Saviour's words at 
the last supper; it is moreover certain, that, whatever 
may be the view in which we choose to consider the 
Eucharistic mystery, every thing in it tends to prove 



7 



* Psalm, lxxxiii. 8, 



70 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



more and more the necessity of that literal sense which 
all Catholics admit. 

IV. This will equally appear from the application 
of the rules of human language to the words of the 
institution. One of these rules requires that, in the 
use of metaphors, the expressions which are to be taken 
metaphorically, should at the same time remain vague 
and indeterminate in themselves, and yet show in their 
general meaning a certain analogy and connexion with 
the qualities of the object to which they are applied. 
Thus our Lord said of himself with great propriety : 
I am the door; 95 that is to say, like to a door through 
which all must enter, who wish to be saved, as he himself 
explained it, (John x. 9.) Again: " I am the true vine; 
and my Father is the husbandman. . . I am the vine; 
you the branches:" (John xv. 1, 5.) That is to say 
again, according to his own explanation, (ib. 4, 6, 8 :) 
I am as the vine from which the branches derive the 
sap whereby they are nourished, you are like those 
branches of the vine which derive their life from it, 
and my Father is like the husbandman who takes an 
assiduous care of them, to make them bear much fruit. 
All this is perfectly reasonable, and adapted to every 
capacity. It is in the same sense, and with the 
same turn of indeterminate expressions implying no- 
thing more than a comparison and resemblance, that 
our Lord is called in the Scripture, 66 a lion," and 
66 a rock," on account of his power and strength; " a 
lamb," on account of his meekness; and " a corner 
stone," on account of his being the founder of the 
Church, composed of converted Jews and Gentiles, 
etc. But no where is he called this or that lion in par- 
ticular, this lamb, this corner stone ; nor did he ever 
say of himself, I am this door, I am this vine, and my 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 



71 



Father is this husbandman: which expressions, by 
excluding the comparison and metaphor, would have 
changed totally his meaning. Now these determinate 
expressions and demonstrative pronouns which exclude 
all metaphor and point out the object itself, were pre- 
cisely those which Christ repeatedly made use of in the 
institution of the Eucharist. " This is my body, this is 
my blood. 99 Hence we cannot but wonder at the inge- 
nuity of our separated brethren, when in sentences so 
essentially different as these, not only in the matter 
spoken of, but also in the mode of phraseology : " I am 
the door," "this is my body;" — "I am the vine," 
" this is my blood," and the like; they equally find a 
symbolical and metaphorical meaning. 

There is another important rule of human language, 
with regard to the use of figurative expressions. This 
rule allows, when an object, either from its own na- 
ture or from universal custom and implicit agreement 
among men, represents and signifies another object, to 
give to the former the name of the latter; in other 
words, to give to the sign the name of the thing signi- 
fied: but it absolutely forbids it in other cases, unless 
the writer or speaker expressly declares that he intends 
to make use of such or such other terms in a figurative 
sense. Thus, at the sight of clouds of rising smoke, 
one may justly say ; " Here is, or this is fire ;" because 
smoke is a very natural sign of the presence of fire. 
Thus also, in pointing out at a picture or statue of 
Washington or Napoleon, we may say with propriety ; 
" This is Washington, this is Napoleon;" because it 
is a universal custom among men, to designate a pic- 
ture or statue by the name of the person whom it repre- 
sents. Likewise, in the interpretation of supernatural 
dreams, typical rites, allegorical visions, the visible 



72 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



object of any such dream, vision and rite, properly 
receives the name of the object which it is intended to 
signify, as in Gen. xli. 26; — Exod. xii. 11; — Dan. ii. 
38; — Ezech. xxxvii. 11; — 1 Corinth, x. 4,6; because 
the intention of both the person who inquires after its 
import, and of the person who interprets it to others is 
precisely, for the one, to learn, and for the other, to 
declare what it signifies: Nor is there, under such 
circumstances, any danger of error and misapprehen- 
sion, since the meaning of words on both sides is 
agreed upon and perfectly understood before hand. 
But, it would be certainly ridiculous in the extreme, 
to exclaim, for instance at the sight of a tree, " This 
is Alexander the Great;" if the speaker had not pre- 
viously made known his intention of designating Alex- 
ander the Great after this manner ; because a tree nei- 
ther by its nature, nor by common agreement of men, 
designates Alexander or any other prince, and there is 
no body in the world, unless duly and previously 
admonished, that could understand such language. 
But, such is the case exactly with the subject now 
under consideration. Bread never signified the body 
of Christ, nor indeed of any other person, either of 
itself or by common usage. Consequently, when 
Christ, having taken bread and blessed it, said: "This 
is my body;" if he meant not his real body now ren- 
dered present by transubstantiation under the appear- 
ance of bread, but, as Protestants assert, a mere sign 
or symbol of his sacred humanity, his expressions are 
the most unintelligible that can possibly be imagined. 
And it cannot be said that he explained them to the 
Apostles in a figurative sense; since not the least ves- 
tige of this pretended explanation is to be found in any 
part of Scripture or Tradition. The direct consequence, 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATIOX. 



73 



then, of the Protestant system is, that Christ violated 
all the rules of language, and spoke in order to be mis- 
understood; nor is there any way left to escape from 
this labyrinth of errors, except to adopt the Catholic 
interpretation. 

Let us hear, on this subject, a man whose controver- 
sial ability is admitted on all sides. " If the Son of 
God," says Bossuet, " were so careful, as he was, to 
explain to his Apostles whatever he had taught them 
under the forms of parables and figures ; is it not mani- 
fest that, since to the foregoing words {This is my 
body) he affixed no explanation whatsoever, it was 
consequently his intention that mankind should under- 
stand them in their plain and obvious import? It is 
true, Protestants pretend that the thing explains itself; 
because it is notorious, they say, that what Christ thus 
presents, appears only to be bread and wine. — Prepos- 
terous and feeble reasoning! For, is not He who 
speaks, possessed of a degree of authority which is 
more than paramount to that of the senses, and superior 
even to all the powers of nature? There is not any 
greater difficulty for the Son of God to give his body 
to us in the Eucharist, by simply saying, " this is my 
body," than there was to cure the sick woman, by 
saying to her ; u Woman, thou art delivered from thy 
infirmity;" (Luke xiii. 12;) — than there was to pre- 
serve the life of the young man, by saying to his 
father; " Thy son liveth;" (John iv. 50;) — than there 
was in fine to remit the sins of the paralytic, by 
merely telling him, "Thy sins are forgiven thee;" 
(Matt. ix. 2.) 

' 'Without, therefore, perplexing ourselves about 
the means by which the divine power of Jesus executes 
what he announces, — what we should do, is thus 
7* 



74 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



respectfully to attach ourselves to his words. That 
Being, who does whatsoever he pleases, by his word 
also performs whatsoever he speaks. It is far less 
difficult for the Son of God to bend the laws of nature 
to obey his word, than it is for us to reconcile our rea- 
son to those singular interpretations, which infringe 
by their violence all the established rules of language. 

" By these rules we are instructed, that the sign which 
represents any object naturally, receives, not un fre- 
quently, the appellation of such an object: because it 
recalls its idea naturally to the imagination. The 
same observation, although with certain restrictions, 
may be made in relation to signs of institution, when 
these are generally received, and by habit, become 
familiar. But, to establish a sign which, of its own 
nature, bears no reference or analogy to its object, for 
example, a bit of bread to signify a human body ; or 
else, to give it a certain name, without giving at the 
same time any explanation of its meaning, and before 
any one, much less the public, has agreed on its accep- 
tation, (and this is what Christ did on the occasion of 
his last supper ;) to do this, is a thing that is quite 
unheard of; a thing of which, neither the whole series 
of the Sacred Scriptures, nor any instance in human 
language, supplies one single example. 

V. But, not only the rules of criticism to be followed 
in the interpretation of Scripture, and the established, 
laws of human language, concur alike in proving, by 
their application to the words used by Christ at the 
last supper, the dogma of his real presence in the Eu- 
charist; the very tenor and the whole context of his 

* Bossuet's Exposition of the Doctrines of the Catholic Church, 
translated by Fletcher, pp. 156 — 158. 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



75 



discourse, the plainness and energy of his expressions, 
even considering them in the fundamental principle of 
Protestants^ unavoidably lead us to the same conclusion. 

No one who calls himself a Christian, will deny that 
Christ could, if he would, change bread into his body, 
and wine into his blood. To him u All power is 
given in heaven and in earth," (Matt, xxviii. 18;) to 
him " The Father had given all things into his hands," 
(John xiii. 3 5) he had, not long before, changed water 
into wine in Cana of Galilee, and he had formerly cre- 
ated the whole world out of nothing. Since, there- 
fore, it is certain that he had the power, we must ad- 
mit that he had the will also, and that he really did 
effect and establish the miraculous change which Ca- 
tholics admit in the Eucharistic mystery; for, he made 
use of the plainest and strongest words possible to 
signify that what he gives us, is no longer the sub- 
stance of bread and wine, but the substance of his own 
body and blood. — We shall now develope this idea 
more fully, first with regard to the real presence alone; 
and then with regard to transubstantiation also, in as 
much as it means the change of the substance of the 
bread and wine into the substance of the body and 
blood of Christ. 

First, the real presence of the body and blood of our 
Lord in this mystery, is very solidly and very satisfac- 
torily established by the words themselves employed in 
its institution, This is my body, this is my blood. 
6 'These words we interpret literally; neither ought 
we to be any more questioned why we thus attach our- 
selves to their obvious and natural signification, than 
the traveller should be asked, why he keeps the high 
road?"* We are even more forcibly inclined to do 



* Bossuet, ibid. 152. 



76 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



this, when we consider that all the other words spoken 
by our Divine Saviour on the same occasion, inculcate 
the same meaning. For, he had also said, just after 
the eating of the passover and immediately before 
mentioning his own sacred body: " Take ye and eat;" 
adding then: 66 This is my body which shall be deli- 
vered for you;" (1 Corinth, xi. £4.) This shows that, 
in the same manner precisely as the ancient Jews were 
commanded to eat of the pacific victim which was of- 
fered for them, as a mark of the share which they had 
taken in its oblation; just so, Christ Jesus, being him- 
self our true pacific victim, has ordained that, in the 
Eucharist, the Christian also shall eat effectually of 
the flesh of the holy sacrifice ; in order that the actual 
communication of this adorable aliment may be to us a 
perpetual memorial, that it was for our sakes that he 
took flesh, and for our salvation, that he was pleased 
to immolate it. 

Next come the words recorded by St. Luke, (xxii. 
19,) and St. Paul, (1 Corinth, xi. 24,) which show that 
this Eucharistic Sacrament and Sacrifice is to be con- 
tinued in the Church to the end of the world: " Do 
this for a commemoration of me," or, as St. Paul ex- 
plains it; in order to " show forth the death of the Lord, 
until he come:" (ibid. 26.) Is it credible that Christ, 
wishing to institute a memorial of his passion and 
death, should have left us nothing better than a piece 
of bread and some wine? At this rate, the Jews were 
much more favored than we are, since they possessed 
in the lamb which they daily immolated, and chiefly 
in the paschal lamb, a much more striking, appropri- 
ate and dignified figure of the body and blood of our 
Saviour as immolated for us on the cross, than bread 
and wine can and will ever be. It is not, then ? such 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



77 



an empty memorial of his sufferings as this, that Christ 
instituted at the last supper, but his own body and 
blood under the appearances of bread and wine. In 
fact, he did not commission his Apostles and their 
successors to make a remembrance of him by merely 
taking and distributing a corporeal food, but by doing 
what he himself had just done in their presence, do 
this ; viz. by consecrating and distributing his body 
and blood under the outward form of material ele- 
ments. To offer therefore in Sacrifice, and receive in 
the Sacrament, that very Humanity of our divine 
Lord which was once the bloody victim of our redemp- 
tion, is the only manner of commemorating and cele- 
brating his death that we ought to admit. 

We must also carefully notice these other words of 
our Saviour: 6 ' My body, which is given for you. . . 
My blood, which shall be shed for you;" (Luke xxii. 
19, 20.) It was surely the true and real body of 
Christ which was immolated for us, and his true and 
real blood which was shed for our salvation. Conse- 
quently, it is also his real body and blood which he 
gives us in the Eucharist. 

This conclusion, our dissenting brethren themselves 
are obliged to admit, if they wish to be consistent, and 
to follow up their fundamental rule of faith, which is 
to believe what is clearly contained in the Bible^ and 
nothing else. For, we have it clearly contained in 
the Bible, that Christ said : " This is my body — This 
i? my blood whereas we do not find any where that 
he said : This is the figure of my body — This is the 
figure of my blood. 

In our opinion, the very simple remark which we 
here present to the reader, should be deemed sufficient 
to make all sincere Protestants perceive the capital 



78 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



error in which the so-called reformation has involved 
them on the subject of the Eucharist. Christ our Lord 
expressly asserted what the Catholics believe, and he 
did not so much as insinuate what their adversaries 
maintain; this alone should be enough for every can- 
did mind, to settle the controversy for ever. Hence, 
the learned and holy doctors of the Church in ancient 
times, the Irenseuses, the Cyrils, the Chrysostoms, the 
Hilaries, frequently contented themselves with relat- 
ing the words of Christ, in order to excite the faithful 
more and more to a firm belief of the real presence 
and transubstantiation.* Hence did it happen, too, 
that Luther never could, notwithstanding his earnest 
desire and efforts, prevail upon himself to reject the 
dogma of the real presence, as he himself testified in 
his letter to the inhabitants of Strasburg: " I wish, %? 
said he, " some one could persuade me that there is 
nothing in the Eucharist, except bread and wine; such 
a one would do me a great service. For, I clearly 
saw how much I should thereby injure popery ; but I 
find myself caught, without any way of escaping : the 
text of the Gospel is too explicit. 55 1 He continued in 
this belief till his death, and not only refused to have 
any communication with those Protestants who denied 
the true and real presence, but moreover, he hurled 
against them sometimes the shafts of his coarse ridi- 
cule, and sometimes the thunder of his vehement 
declamation and anathemas. 

It is true, that this Great Reformer, wishing to deny 
as much as he could of the Catholic dogma, banished 
t ran substantiation from his creed, and maintained that 

* See their several passages above, pp. 17— 19, and also here- 
after, ch. II. 

t Epist. ad Argentinenses, 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



79 



the substance of the bread and wine remained in the 
Eucharist, together with the substance of the body and 
blood of Christ; a novel theory which was designated 
by the name of consubstantiation. But, it was as easy 
a task for Catholics to refute him on this point, as it 
had been for him to overthrow the doctrine of his oppo- 
nents about the real presence. For, as we have argued 
hitherto against the Protestant system at large, since 
our Lord said, 66 this is my body, this is my blood;' 5 
he must have given the real substance of his body and 
blood, otherwise he would not have spoken the truth; 
and moreover, there could have been no other sub- 
stance with that body and blood, otherwise he would 
not have spoken according to the rules of language. 
The word "this" expresses in its obvious and proper 
acceptation, the entire substance of the thing present ; 
but if the substance of the bread and wine had re- 
mained, the pronoun this would by no means have 
expressed it, since it is applied by Christ only to his 
body and blood. Again ; our Saviour's words, accord- 
ing to the ordinary rules of speech, convey no other 
idea than that the substance of his sacred body and blood 
is the only substance present. But what material did 
he employ for the Eucharistic consecration? Was it not 
bread and wine? Consequently, there must have been 
a change of the whole substance of the bread into the 
substance of the body, and of the whole substance of 
the wine into the substance of the blood of Christ. 
This is what we call transubstantiationi and thus does 
it remain certain that the words used in the institution 
of the Eucharist imply the dogma of transubstantiation 
as necessarily as they do the real presence. 

This may be confirmed from the controversy which 
arose on this point among the first reformers. Whilst 



80 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



Luther endeavored to obtain credit for his new doc- 
trine of consubstantiation, the leaders of the other 
Protestant parties, Zuinglius, Calvin, etc., denounced 
it as erroneous, called it inconsistent, and showed that 
the real presence cannot be admitted without admitting 
at the same time a change of substance. For, Christ, 
they observed, did not say, 6 ; here is my body, or my 
body is with this and under this;" nor, 66 this contains 
my body;" but simply, " this is my body:" teaching 
us thereby, that what he gives to his children, is not a 
substance which contains his body or accompanies it, 
but his body itself without any other substance. Nor 
did he say, "this bread is my body," but, "this is 
my body," to show that the substance which he gives 
is no longer bread, but his body. These arguments 
in favor of transubstantiation were certainly conclu- 
sive, and as unanswerable as those made by Luther 
himself in favor of the real presence. And thus it 
was, in the great contest carried on among the Protes- 
tant parties, that the Catholic Church alone was victo- 
rious, as this conduct of her enemies plainly attested. K 
VI. The last proof which we have promised in sup- 
port of the Catholic interpretation of our Saviour's 
words, is the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the 
whole tradition of the Church from the earliest days of 
her existence. All our ancestors in the faith ever 
since the dawn of Christianity, have grounded chiefly 
upon these words their belief of the real presence and 
transubstantiation, as we have shown before and will 
again show afterwards. Here, then, may we also rest 
in perfect security as to the truth and certainty of our 
doctrine. Who could believe, if he reflected but a 



* See Bossuet's History of Variations, b. ii. ch. 30—37. 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



81 



few moments, that our Lord kept the Church which he 
himself has founded, during fifteen hundred years in 
darkness about the real meaning of his expressions, and 
reserved the true understanding of them to the inno- 
vators of the sixteenth century? Who would not like 
infinitely better to appear at the judgment- seat of 
Christ in the company of those illustrious saints, Igna- 
tius, Irenseus, Justin, Hilary, Chrysostom, Basil, Au- 
gustine, Ambrose, Gregory, etc. etc., than by the side 
of such men as Carlostadius, Zuinglius, Luther and 
Calvin? In fine, what person ever so little anxious 
about his eternal salvation, will not, in so momentous 
a point, prefer the unanimous assent and judgment of 
all those holy doctors, of those brilliant ornaments and 
lights of the Church, of the whole Church herself, 
" the pillar and ground of the truth," (1 Timoth. iii. 
15;) to that of the unauthorized individuals who, ex- 
cited by disappointed pride or by still more degrading 
passions, dared to attack this unanimous belief of all 
preceding ages? 

Let us conclude this part of our subject by a general 
consideration, taken from the foreknowledge of Christ. 
When he instituted the holy Eucharist, he foresaw 
perfectly well that the terms which he employed on 
this occasion, would be understood in their literal 
sense by all the Fathers, all the holy Doctors, all the 
Saints, in a word, by ail Christians for fifteen hundred 
years, and then, during the following generations, by 
a vast majority of them throughout the world. He 
knew also that the circumstances in which he spoke, 
the principles of criticism and the rules of language, 
would all convey the meaning of transubstantiation 
and of his true, real and substantial presence in the 
Eucharist. In fine, by altering his expressions or by 
8 



82 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



abstaining from speaking at all on the subject, he could 
have most easily removed and discarded that meaning; 
and yet, he did and said what was the best calculated 
to force it irresistibly upon the mind. What must be 
concluded from this? Nothing else than that, if the 
belief of Catholics be error, superstition and idolatry, 
as Protestants have so often called it, it is to Christ him- 
self that the establishment of error, superstition and 
idolatry should be chiefly attributed; " Domine, si er- 
ror est, ate decepti sumus," must we say with the cele- 
brated Richard of St. Victor. If our separated breth- 
ren think proper to continue in the admission of this 
odious consequence, we shall not envy their fate, but 
lament their misfortune. As to ourselves, we would 
rather doubt our own existence, than believe for a sin- 
gle instant that the Divine Wisdom could have thus 
deceived us; and every one will readily apply to the 
present subject these words of St. Augustine about the 
necessity of the Divine Being itself : " Facilius dubi- 
tarem vivere me, quam non esse veritatem quae per ea 
quae facta sunt, intellecta conspicitur."* 



SECTION III. 

WORDS OF ST. PAUL CONCERNING THE RECEPTION 
OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. . 

After viewing the many and strong evidences of 
the Catholic dogma, which result from the words em- 
ployed by Christ both in the promise and in the insti- 
tution of the holy Eucharist, it may seem quite unne- 
cessary to look after other arguments. However, 
since it has been the kind will of Almighty God to 



t Confess. Lo vii. c. 10. 




AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



83 



supply us with a variety of proofs of the truth of this 
adorable mystery? in order both to strengthen the faith 
of its sincere believers, and to convince its adversaries 
of the error of their system : we will, in compliance 
with his designs, proceed in the same course of rea- 
soning which we have hitherto pursued. 

The Apostle St. Paul, in his first epistle to the Co- 
rinthians, has a remarkable passage concerning the 
crime which is committed by the unworthy communi- 
cant, and about the dispositions which must be brought 
to the reception of the Eucharist. After relating the 
history of its institution in the same manner exactly as 
we find it recorded in the Gospel, and such as he had 
learned it from the Lord himself, (xi. 23, 25 ;) he adds : 
" Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink 
the chalice unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and 
blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, and 
so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. * 
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and 
drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body 
of the Lord." t Here we have a series of propositions 
fully deserving of notice, and well calculated, every 
one of them, to produce in the mind a deep conviction 
of the true and real presence of our Lord in the Eucha- 
ristic mystery. 

In the first place, St. Paul, like the Evangelists, 
mentions in the plainest terms the body and blood of 
Christ as being given us at communion, and similar to 

* Drink of the chalice: — This is said by way of supposition, 
namely, if one drinks of the chalice at all ; but not by way of com- 
mand to receive under both kinds ; since, in the verse which imme- 
diately precedes, the Apostle has declared the sufficiency of either 
kind to receive both the body and the blood of Christ. 

1 1 Corinth, xi. 27—29. 



84 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



them says not one word which indicates a merely figti- 
rative presence. Now, one of these two must be said; 
either he meant with them that the body and blood of 
our Saviour are really and substantially present in the 
Eucharist, or he concurred with them in constantly 
telling us what Protestants assert we should not admit, 
and never telling us what they say we should believe. 
But this second member of the dilemma is necessarily 
false 5 therefore the first part, which expresses and 
contains the Catholic dogma, is necessarily true. 

And we must not be startled by the fact, that both 
St. Paul, in the passage just cited, and our Lord him- 
self, in the sixth chapter of St. John, sometimes desig- 
nate the Eucharist by the word bread; for, that this 
appellation, (as also that of wine, if ever applied to 
the chalice,) can create no serious difficulty against a 
dogma so unequivocally taught by themselves, will, it 
is hoped, appear manifest from the following reasons. 
L As there is bread before the consecration, the Eu- 
charist, without retaining afterwards the substance of 
it, can however be called by its name with as much 
propriety, as the rod of Aaron was still called rod after 
its being changed into a serpent; (Exod. vii. 12;) — » 
as the water changed into wine in Cana of Galilee? 
was yet called water, though with the additional ex- 
pression of its having become wine 5 (John ii. 9 t) — as 
the blind whose sight had been restored, are still called 
blind by St. Matt. xi. 5, and St. Luke vii. 22, 2. 
Since the color, the shape and other appearances of 
bread remain in the Eucharist, this is another reason 
why it may occasionally receive its name even after 
the consecration, as we see that the angels whose ap- 
paritions we read of in the Bible, are frequently called 
men, e. g. Genes, xviii. 2, Jos. v. 13, Dan. ix. 21, 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



85 



Acts i. 10 ; not because they were such, but because 
they appeared in human shape. 3. It is well known, 
on the one hand, that the word bread in the Scripture 
often signifies all kinds of food, as in Genes, iii. 19, 
and, on the other, that the Eucharist is the true ali- 
ment of our souls, as Christ himself testifies in saying : 
" My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink in- 
deed;" (John vi. 56.) It was then very proper that 
this holy Sacrament should be sometimes designated by 
the appellation of bread, in order to remind us of this 
truth, that the flesh of Christ is that heavenly bread 
which was once promised and is now given to his chil- 
dren, according to these words, " the bread which I 
will give, is my flesh for the life of the world, 5 ' (John 
vi. 52,) and also to point out the admirable effects that 
are produced by the holy Eucharist in the soul of the 
devout communicant. For, as material bread feeds, 
supports and strengthens the body, so likewise this 
divine Sacrament nourishes the soul, fills her with 
heavenly grace, and is for her a pledge of blessed 
immortality. 

To return to the text of St. Paul; we have seen in 
it, that " he who eateth and drinketh unworthily, eat- 
eth and drinketh judgment to himself;" (1 Corinth, xi. 
29.) This is undoubtedly a very strong expression 
and an awful threat, which supposes a very heinous 
crime; nor do we read any where else, that 66 one eats 
and drinks judgment to himself," so as to become 
identified, as it were, with his own condemnation. 
Yet, all this is perfectly intelligible in the Catholic 
doctrine, according to which the unworthy reception 
of the Eucharist, being a direct profanation of the body 
and blood of our Saviour really present in it, is on that 
account a sin of a peculiarly outrageous nature, a foul 
8* ' 



86 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



deed which turns the divine aliment into a poison for 
the soul, and a sacrilege worthy of the severest stroke 
of divine justice. But, in the Protestant theory, the 
Apostle should have had no reason to utter such threats 
and to use words so terrific. Since, in the system 
of the corporal absence of Christ from the Eucha- 
rist, his sacred body is not eaten by the unworthy 
receiver, there is consequently no danger of its being 
profaned, nor does there remain any adequate occasion 
for the dreadful punishment spoken of by St. Paul. — 
Again: the reason why the unworthy communicant is 
said to " eat and drink judgment to himself, " is be- 
cause "he does not discern the body of the Lord." 
But, what fault can be found with him for not discern- 
ing the body of the Lord in the Eucharist, if it is not 
substantially present there? Above all, how can he 
be said to be guilty "of the body and blood of the 
Lord.," as the same Apostle asserts he is? (Ibid. 27.) 
Will it be answered, that it is because such a one 
treats in a disrespectful and irreverent manner the 
signs or memorials of that sacred body and blood?* — 
At this rate, since the manna and paschal lamb of old 
were also the figures of our Saviour's humanity, (and 
indeed much more impressive ones than bread and 
wine can be,) those Jews who ate of either in sinful 
dispositions, were guilty of the body and blood of the 
Lord! An irreverent son likewise, who would train - 

* How great is the inconsistency of our separated brethren ! De- 
cidedly adverse as they are to religious symbols and memorials, they 
strain every nerve to find one, exclusive of the reality, in the Koly 
Eucharist. Thus, whilst they discard the use of ceremonies, pic- 
tures and images where it ought to be admitted, they on the con- 
trary admit an imaginary sign, and an empty symbol, where it ought 
evidently to be rejected. 



AND TRANSUBSTAXTIATION 



87 



pie under foot or break through contempt the portrait 
of his father, without however any further offence, is 
to be held guilty of the body and blood of his parent! 
Who can bear such language, or even understand it? 
It is true, there is a moral guilt in destroying or pro- 
faning the representations of persons worthy of respect, 
particularly the religious memorials of our divine Lord, 
of his blessed Mother and of his saints, because the 
insult offered to the image is equivalently offered to 
the person whom the image represents ; and in this 
sense, truly guilty were the ancient Iconoclasts or 
Image-breakers, and the reformers also, who, after 
the lapse of several centuries, imitated their example. 
Yet, they were not on that account " guilty of the 
body and blood' 9 of our Saviour or of his saints. 
These extraordinary expressions are too strong and 
energetic to signify only the profanation of an inani- 
mate object, however sacred ; and most assuredly mean 
something more, namely, an immediate and actual 
outrage offered to the person himself. Since, there- 
fore, St. Paul makes use of them to designate the 
crime of the unworthy communicant, he necessarily 
pre-supposes the real and substantial presence of our 
Lord in the Eucharist; and thus is it evident that he 
fully concurs with the other inspired writers, in estab- 
lishing this important dogma of the Catholic faith. 

Let us conclude these proofs from the Scripture, by 
a remark well deserving of serious attention. The 
generality of Protestants willingly admit with us the 
mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation; they believe 
as we do, that there are three distinct persons in God, 
and but one divine nature; that there are two natures 
in Christ, and but one person. Still, it is impossible 
to discover in the whole Bible, texts more explicit and 



88 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



more perspicuous in support of these mysteries, than 
those by which we have vindicated the truth of the 
Catholic dogma of the Eucharist. How does it hap- 
pen, then, that believing the former, they reject the 
latter; and that they pay so little regard to the severi- 
ty with which the practice of using two measures is 
reprobated by Almighty God in the Scripture, (Deuter. 
xxv. IS — 16.) For, if that practice is so very dis- 
pleasing in his sight even with regard to temporal 
concerns, what will it be in reference to his revealed 
truths, upon which our eternal salvation depends ! 

This will be still more impressive, if we transport 
ourselves in spirit before that awful tribunal, where 
we shall have one day to give a strict account of our 
faith as well as of our actions. Let us represent to 
ourselves, first, the Protestant when cited to appear 
in presence of the Sovereign Judge. What will he 
answer, when asked the reason of his disbelief of the 
Eucharistic mystery? What excuse will he be able to 
offer? what apology will he make, for having inter- 
preted the words of Holy Writ in a figurative sense, 
when they positively exclude it, and for having said 
that there is in the Eucharist nothing more than a sign, 
or at most a certain virtue of the body and blood of 
Christ, whilst Christ himself has, in the plainest terms, 
declared it to be his body and blood? — Will not the 
Catholic, on the contrary, be entitled to say with per- 
fect security and confidence: " Lord, I received 
thy sacred w r ords in their plain and obvious meaning, 
just as they were uttered by Thee, as they were re- 
corded by thy Apostles, as they were constantly un- 
derstood by thy Church; could I be wrong in doing 
so? Nay, could I do any thing better, than to believe 
thy Church, which thou hadst so strictly commanded 



AND TRxiNSUBSTANTIATION. 



89 



me to hear; thy Apostles, whom thou didst appoint to 
preach thy word and teach all nations in thy name; 
and thyself, who art the uncreated, eternal and infal- 
lible truth! " 



CHAPTER II. 

PROOFS FROM TRADITION. 

By Tradition is meant the unwritten ivord, as by 
Scripture is meant the written word of God. That, 
in matters of religion, the former is not less to be ad- 
mitted than the latter, is evident from the Scripture 
itself. For we read in St. Matthew, (xxviii. 20,) that 
our Lord commissioned his Apostles to " go and teach 
all things ivhatsoever he had commanded them;" a 
commission which undoubtedly they faithfully exe- 
cuted. On the other hand, we learn from St. John, 
(xxi. 25,) that many of these things were not consigned 
to writing; whilst even those which the holy Apostles 
had occasion to write for a fuller instruction of the 
faithful, were chiefly to be preached and inculcated 
by word of mouth, according to this injunction of our 
Saviour: " Preach the Gospel to every creature;" 
(Mark xvi. 15;) and because "faith cometh by hear- 
ing," as St. Paul says, (Rom. x. 17.) 

Again; St. Luke relates in the first chapter of the 
Acts of the Apostles, that Christ 66 showed himself 
alive to his disciples, after his passion, by many 
proofs ; for forty days appearing to them, and speaking 
of the kingdom of God;" (Acts i. 3.) These instruc- 
tions of our Saviour undoubtedly were not to be lost to 
the Church; since, therefore, we find but very few of 



90 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



them recorded by the sacred penmen, they must have 
come down to us in another way, viz. through the 
preaching of the Apostles and the channel of tradi- 
tion. 

But, we have a still more explicit evidence of the 
existence and authority of tradition, in these words of 
St. Paul to the Thessalonians: 46 Therefore, brethren, 
stand firm: and hold the traditions which you have 
learned whether by word or by our epistle ;" (2 Thess. 
ii. 14.) 44 And we charge you, brethren, in the name 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw your- 
selves from every brother walking disorderly, and not 
according to the tradition which they have received of 
us;" (Ibid. iii. 6.) Hence we see in Ecclesiastical 
history, that the first general Councils, as well as 
those celebrated in later times, were ever careful to 
support the various points of the Christian doctrine, 
not only by quotations from Scripture, but also, by 
the concurring testimonies of the more ancient Fathers 
and Councils; a paramount rule which the Council of 
Trent confirmed by the following solemn decree: 
44 Considering that the Christian truth and discipline 
is contained in the written books, and also in the un- 
written traditions, which being received from the 
mouth of Christ himself by the Apostles, or delivered 
by them under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, have 
been transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand even 
to ourselves ; the holy oecumenical and general Coun- 
cil of Trent, after the example of the orthodox Fathers, 
receives with equal devotion and respect, all the books 
of the Old and of the New Testament, both of which 
have God for their author; and also the traditions, 
whether they appertain to faith or to morals, as having 
been delivered by Christ or dictated by the Holy 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



91 



Ghost, and preserved without any interruption in the 
Catholic Church."* 

We are aware that Protestants reject, or at least 
feign to reject in theory, the authority of tradition; 
but, that they are obliged to admit it, and that they do 
really admit it in practice, appears from several unde- 
niable facts. For, the generality of them believe with 
us, e. g. the inspiration of the four gospels neither 
more nor less, the validity of infant-baptism, also the 
validity of baptism conferred by heretics when admi- 
nistered in its proper matter and form, the obligation 
of keeping holy the Sunday instead of the Sabbath, 
etc. But, from what source are these various points 
of faith or discipline derived, except from tradition? 
They admit likewise, that neither the physical wash- 
ing of one another's feet, nor the abstinence from blood 
and from things strangled mentioned in Holy Writ, is 
of strict obligation; but how do they know all this 
except through the channel of tradition? Again; if 
tradition, as they often pretend, has no weight in reli- 
gious matters, why do they take so much trouble to 
search after, and why do they show so much readiness 
to lay hold on, any text or document of Christian anti- 
quity, though ever so little favorable to their tenets? 
Since, therefore, their respect for a mere shadow of 
tradition is so great; what would it be, could they 
seriously fancy, at least for a time, that their reli- 
gious opinions are upheld by the unanimous voice of 
tradition itself ! 

The truth is, that nothing is more powerful to refute 
their errors, and to vindicate the various parts of divine 
revelation, than the ancient tradition and constant 

* Cone. Trid. Sess. iv. Deer, de Canon. Script. 



92 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



belief of the Church, not only on account of its intrin- 
sic weight, but also because it is an unquestionable 
evidence of the doctrine which was preached by the 
Apostles under the dictate of the Holy Ghost. And 
we do sincerely believe that there is, in fact, no course 
of reasoning, not even the quotation of the plain words 
of Scripture, which Protestants fear so much as this 5 
because they find it an easier task to cavil at some iso- 
lated passages of Holy Writ, how explicit soever they 
may be 5 than to attack the powerful array of concur- 
rent testimonies drawn from Tradition. Their perplex- 
ity in this matter is so much the greater, as we adduce, 
in proof of the Catholic doctrines, chiefly the passages 
of those illustrious Fathers who lived during the first 
centuries of the Christian era, and the belief of that 
primitive Church, which is venerated, and acknow- 
ledged to have been pure, by the generality of our 
dissenting brethren themselves. 

Indeed, who can but venerate those learned and 
holy men, who, raised up by the Almighty in his 
Church to be both the witnesses and the defenders of 
her holy and apostolic faith, live still, we may say, in 
their admirable writings? Who can but readily be- 
lieve such men as the Ignatiuses, the Polycarps, the 
Justins, the Irenseuses, the Cyprians, and other gene- 
rous martyrs, who sealed with their blood the faith 
which they professed ; — such men as the Athana- 
siuses, the Hilaries, the Basils, the Cyrils, and others, 
whom persecution carried from province to province, 
from country to country, to afford them the opportunity 
of giving a still more splendid testimony of the truth, 
and of confounding everywhere the wiles and artifices 
of error;- — in fine, such brilliant geniuses as the Chry- 
sostoins, the Leos, the Ambroses, the Jeromes, the 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATIOX. 



93 



Augustines, the Gregories? Of what persons can it be 
more justly said that they are all worthy of our un- 
qualified admiration; that they were truly great, not 
only before men, but also before God, whom they 
honored as well by the sanctity of their lives, as by 
their labors in defence of religion; and that their 
writings, like so many burning and shining lamps in 
the Church of Christ, still continue to spread around 
a glorious light, and to kindle in the hearts of the 
faithful the same fire of divine charity which glowed 
in the breasts of their sainted authors? Though per- 
sons of this description had no other credentials than 
the evidences of their own individual qualifications, 
still would they be deserving of our unbounded confi- 
dence. 

But their authority rests upon still surer grounds. 
We do not merely consider them as private doctors; 
but chiefly in their quality of bishops appointed by the 
Holy Ghost, ' ' to rule the Church of God, which he 
hath purchased with his own blood," (Acts xx. 28:) 
and as the successors of the Apostles, with whom our 
Lord has promised to be 6 6 all days, even to the con- 
summation of the world;" (Matt, xxviii. 20.) For, 
44 some indeed he gave to be apostles, and some pro- 
phets, and others evangelists, and others pastors and 
teachers, for the perfection of the saints, for the work 
of the ministry, unto the edification of the body of 
Christ: till we all meet in the unity of faith . . . that 
we may not now be children, tossed to and fro, and 
carried about with every wind of doctrine;" (Ephes. 
iv. 11 — 14.) Consequently, when we hear and obey 
the voice of men invested with this divine mission, it 
is not so much their voice, as it is that of our Lord 
which we hear and obey, since he himself has said : 
9 



94 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



"He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that de- 
spiseth you, despiseth me." (Luke x. 16.) 

It is not, however, by any means, necessary to bring 
here in full array all the Fathers who have spoken of 
the holy Eucharist Having already proved by nume- 
rous passages the perpetuity of the Catholic faith con- 
cerning this mystery, a few quotations more will be 
sufficient to ascertain in particular the belief and doc- 
trine of the first ages of the Church, as sure evidence 
of apostolic tradition; the more so, as the Eucharist 
having ever been held as a dogma of explicit faith and 
a sacrament of daily or very frequent use, nothing was 
easier, not only for the pastors, but even for the cqm- 
mon faithful, than to know the full import of its ad- 
mission and practice. Indeed, if two or three wit- 
nesses are sufficient, even according to the rules pre- 
scribed by Divine Wisdom, to settle a question and 
convict a culprit; if, about the recital of past events, 
we give credit to one historian or two, e. g. a Jose- 
phus, a Tacitus, a Plutarch, a Livy, or others, who 
frequently lived a long time after the facts which they 
relate; how much more ought we to believe several 
learned and holy men unanimously testifying to us the 
public fact of the doctrine of their own time, about 
which it was equally impossible that they should have 
conspired to deceive us, or should have been deceived 
themselves! At all events, we will adduce as many of 
them as can be reasonably desired to produce convic- 
tion; and we will see, moreover, that their testimony 
is fully sustained and corroborated by the language of 
the liturgies and other authentic documents of anti- 
q^y- 

Let us then, with entire confidence, apply to these 
unexceptionable witnesses of the doctrine and belief of 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



95 



ancient times, in order to ascertain what was the faith 
of the primitive Church and the tradition of the Apos- 
tles relative to the holy Eucharist. Let us suppose 
ourselves to have been of the number of those neo- 
phytes who received regular instructions on this sub- 
ject from the mouth of their pastors; and particularly 
of those for whom the following catechetical lecture 
was delivered at Jerusalem towards the year three 
hundred and forty-eight : 

" The doctrine of the blessed Paul alone is sufficient 
to give certain proof of the truth of the divine myste- 
ries ; and you being deemed worthy of them, are be- 
come one body and one blood with Christ. For, this 
great Apostle says, that our Lord, in the same night 
wherein he was delivered, having taken bread and 
given thanks, broke it and gave it to his disciples, 
saying to them : 66 Take ye and eat, this is my body." 
Afterwards he took the cup, and said: 4 6 Take and 
drink, this is my blood." As then Christ, speaking 
of the bread, declared and said, " this is my body," 
who shall dare to doubt it? And as, speaking of the 
wine, he positively assured us, and said, "this is my 
blood," who shall doubt it, and say that it is not his 
blood? 

" Jesus Christ, in Cana of Galilee, once changed 
water into wine by his will only ; and shall we think 
him less worthy of credit, when he changes wine into 
blood? Invited to an earthly marriage, he wrought 
this miracle ; and shall we hesitate to confess, that he 
has given to his children his body to eat, and his blood 
to drink? Wherefore, with all confidence, let us take 
the body and blood of Christ. For in the type or 
figure of bread, his body is given to thee, and in the 
type or figure of wine, his blood is given; that so being 



96 PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 

made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, you 
may become one body and one blood with him. Thus, 
the body and blood of Christ being distributed in our 
members, we become Christiferi, that is, we carry 
Christ with us; and thus, as St. Peter says, " we are 
made partakers of the divine nature." 

" In the old dispensation there were loaves of bread 
which were offered before God, and because they per- 
tained to that old dispensation, they have ceased with 
it ; but now in the new dispensation, there is a heaven- 
ly bread and a cup of salvation which sanctify soul 
and body ; for as the bread is the nourishment which is 
proper to the body, so the Word is the nourishment 
which is proper to the soul. Wherefore I conjure you, 
my brethren, not to consider them any more as mere 
bread and wine, since they are the body and blood 
of Jesus Christ according to his words; and although 
your sense might suggest that to you, let faith confirm 
you. Judge not of the thing by your taste, but by faith 
assure yourself, without the least doubt, that you are 
honored with the body and blood of Christ : this know- 
ing, and of this being assured, that what appears to be 
bread, is not bread, though it be taken for bread by 
the taste, but the body of Christ; and that which 
appears to be wine, is not wine, though the taste will 
have it so, but the blood of Christ. 95 * 

Should a Protestant read or hear somewhere this 
passage, without knowing its real author and the time 
in which it was written, he would no doubt ascribe it 
to some Popish priest or monk, probably one who lived 
in the dark ages. But no ; that pretended ignorant 
monk or Popish priest of the dark ages is found to be 



* S. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. fllystag. iv. 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



97 



no other than the illustrious St. Cyril, bishop of Jeru- 
salem in the fourth century, to whose eminent merits 
and virtues the Council of Constantinople of 382 gave 
a solemn testimony, and whose long episcopacy during 
one of the most brilliant periods of the Church, God 
himself was pleased to signalize by a variety of prodi- 
gies, among others, by the miraculous defeat of the 
Emperor Julian's attempt to rebuild the temple of 
Jerusalem. This was the holy prelate who, in the 
catechetical instruction just cited and delivered to the 
neophytes, that is, to a class of persons whom it would 
have been a most awkward thing to address on reli- 
gious matters in a figurative language, explained the 
Christian doctrine about the real presence and tran- 
substantiation, in the plainest style he could command. 
Can there be a more explicit testimony of the faith of 
ancient times on this subject? Could any Catholic at 
the present day express himself more clearly than does 
here St. Cyril, and inculcate in stronger terms the 
change of the whole substance of the bread and wine 
into the body and blood of Christ, in the Eucharistic 
mystery? 

Nor is this language peculiar to St. Cyril; we find 
it to have been used by the other holy Fathers, 
particularly by St. Ambrose, the celebrated arch- 
bishop of Milan, who died in the year 397. In his 
work Be Mysteriis, composed for the newly baptized, 
he says: " The manna in the desert was given in 
figure. You have known things more excellent. For, 
light is preferable to the shadow ; truth to the figure ; 
the body of Christ to the manna of heaven. But you 
may say, I see somewhat else; how do you assert, that 
I shall receive the body of Christ? This remains to be 
proved. How many examples may we not make use 
9* 



98 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



of, to show that we have not here what nature formed, 
but what the divine blessing has consecrated ; and that 
the virtue of this blessing is more powerful than that 
of nature, because by it nature itself is changed! 
Moses held the rod : he cast it on the ground, and it 
became a serpent. Again he took it by the tail, and 
again it became a rod. See you not that, by the pro- 
phetic power, the nature of the rod and of the serpent 
was twice changed? 55 — Here the holy doctor proceeds 
to instance many other wonders as recorded in the 
Scripture, and then adds: " If now the blessing of 
men was powerful enough to change nature, what must 
we not say of the divine consecration, where the very- 
words of our Lord operate? For, that sacrament 
which you receive, is accomplished by the word of 
Christ. If the word of Elias could call down fire 
from heaven, shall not the word of Christ be able to 
change the form of the elements? You have read 
concerning the creation of the world: "He spoke, 
and it was done; he commanded, and it was formed. 95 
Therefore the word of Christ, which could draw out of 
nothing what was not, shall it not be able to change 
the things that are, into that which they were not? 
For it is not a less effect of power to give new exis- 
tence to things, than to change the natures that were. 
We will now establish the truth of the mystery, from 
the example itself of the Incarnation. Was the order 
of nature followed, when Jesus was born of a Virgin? 
Plainly, not. — Then, why is that order to be looked 
for here? It was the true flesh of Christ which was 
crucified, which was buried; and this is truly the 
sacrament of his flesh. Our Lord himself proclaims: 
"This is my body."* — Thus far St. Ambrose, whose 

* St. Ambr. De Mysieriis, c. viiL 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



99 



words are too clear of themselves, to need any com- 
ment. 

Our next quotation will be from the incomparable 
doctor and light of the eastern Church, St. John Chry- 
sostom, archbishop of Constantinople, in his twenty- 
fourth homily on the first epistle to the Corinthians. 
Explaining these words of the Apostle: " The chalice 
of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion 
of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we 
break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?' 9 
(1 Corinth, x. 16,) he says: 

" These w r ords are well calculated to animate our 
faith and inspire us with fear; for they signify : That 
which is in the chalice, is the very same blood which 
flowed from the side of our Saviour, and we are par- 
takers of it; and as to the body of Christ, we are also 
made partakers, not merely of the altar, as the ancient 
Jews were, but of Christ himself. .... If therefore 
no one would be rash enough to receive with careless- 
ness and indifference a king who should come to visit 
him, not even to touch with unclean hands the royal 
garment, which after all is nothing better than the 
produce of worms; if, I say, no one dares rashly to 
touch the vestment of a man: how shall we presume to 
receive without respect the pure and spotless body of 
the Supreme Lord of the universe: that body which is 
united to the divine nature; by which we are and we 
live; by which the powers of hell have been crushed, 
and the gates of heaven opened? Let us not then, by 
our unworthiness, inflict death on ourselves ; but let us 
approach to receive it with all purity and respect; and 
when it is presented to you, say to yourself: This is 
the body by which I am no longer mere dust and ashes, 
no longer a captive, but free. This is the body which 



100 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



makes me hope, that I shall one day possess heaven 
and enjoy its goods, that I shall obtain eternal life? 
that I shall be admitted to the happiness of the Angels 
and to the company of Christ. That body, though 
pierced with nails and cruelly scourged, was not de- 
stroyed by death. That body was no sooner crucified, 
than on its account the sun diverted its rays,, the veil 
was rent, the rocks were split, and the whole earth 
was in commotion. This is the body which was cover- 
ed with wounds, pierced with a lance, and from which 
gushed out two salutary streams, the one of blood, the 
other of water. This body, Christ, in his immense- 
charity for men, has given us to possess and to eat. 

" Let us, therefore, approach to receive it with great 
fervor and with an ardent love, lest we should render 
ourselves worthy of punishment. For, the greater the 
benefits are which we receive, the more severely shall 
we be punished, if we show ourselves unworthy of 
them. The wise men reverenced that body, even 
when it was lying in a manger. These infidels and 
barbarians left their country and their homes, and 
going a long journey, they came and adored it with 
great respect and fear. Shall we not then, we who 
are the citizens of heaven, at least imitate the conduct 
of barbarians? For although they found this body in 
the stable and in the manger, and saw none of the 
things which are now before your eyes, they however 
approached it with profound respect; as for you, it is 
no longer in the manger that you see it, but upon the 
altar; not in the arms of a woman, but in the hands of 
the priest. Wherefore, let us excite ourselves, and 
be filled with awe, and show still greater piety than 
the wise men did, in order that we may not approach 
rashly and inconsiderately, and thus heap fire on our 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 10 i 

heads. I do not say this to prevent you from ap- 
proaching; for, exactly as it is dangerous to approach 
rashly, so also not to participate in this mysterious 
supper is to die of hunger, and to be consumed by ex- 
haustion. That table is the strength of our souls, the 
support of our hearts, the source of our confidence ; it 
is our hope, our salvation, our light and our life. 

64 If we depart this life after the reception of so 
great a Sacrament, being, as it were, covered with a 
golden armor on all sides, we shall proceed with con- 
fidence towards the sanctuary of heaven. But why 
should I speak of future things., whilst this mystery 
changes the earth into a paradise for you? Open then 
the gates of heaven, even of the heaven of heavens, 
and consider; you will see what I have told you. 
That which is most precious there, I will show it to 
you present upon earth. For, it is not the wall, nor a 
gilt roof, but the body of the King sitting upon a 
throne, which is the most magnificent object in a 
palace ; so in heaven also, it is the body of our Lord, 
and this is the very body which you are allowed to see 
upon earth. In fact, I do not show to you merely the 
Angels, the Archangels, the heavens, and the heaven 
of heavens, but the Sovereign Lord of all these 
things himself. Do you not see that you possess here 
on earth the most precious of all treasures ! Nay, you 
do not see it only, but you touch it; and you do not 
touch it only, but even you eat it, and carry it to your 
homes. 59 * 

What a splendid text in favor of the Catholic dogma 
on the Eucharist is this passage of St. John Chrysos- 
tom! And since the author of it was universally ad- 
mired and applauded for his doctrine, and revered for 
* S. Joann. Chrysost. Homil. xxiv. in Ephl. i. ad Corinth. 



102 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



his sanctity, both in the East and the West, can a 
stronger testimony be desired to prove that the faith 
of the ancient Church, concerning this mystery, was 
exactly the same which Catholics profess at present? 
As it would be useless to insist much longer on so> 
clear a point, let us conclude this part of our quota- 
tions by adducing the following words of St. Cyril, 
who was patriarch of Alexandria during the first period 
of the fifth century, and the invincible champion of 
the faith against the heresy of Nestorius. 

"I^am, says Christ, the living bread which came 
down from heaven ; (John vi. 51.) The manna was 
the type, was the shadow, and the image. Hear 
again how openly and plainly he speaks: / am the 
living bread ; if any man shall eat of this bread, he 
shall live for ever; (Ibid. 52.) They that ate of the 
manna, are dead, because it gave not life;, he that eats* 
this bread, that is me, or my flesh, shall live for ever. 
Our Lord Jesus, by his own flesh gives life to us;; 
inserts, as it were, in us the seed of immortality, de- 
stroying all the corruption that is in us. — And his; 
blood is not that of any common man, but that of Ms; 
own natural life. Wherefore, receiving the Son with- 
in us, we are called the body and members Christ;, 
for, he which eateth my body and drinketh my blood,, 
abideth in me, and I in him; (Ibid. 57.) 

" The Jews strove among themselves, saying: How 
can this man give us his flesh to eat? (Ibid. 53..) 
This How is a Jewish exclamation, and a cause of the 
severest punishment. For, will they be not worthy of 
the greatest torments, who so contemn God, the crea- 
tor of all things, as to dare to put the question How 
concerning his operations? The ill-disposed, indocile 
man, immediately with arrogance rejects as frivolous 



AND TRANSTJBSTANTIATION. 



103 



and false, whatsoever he does not understand; yield- 
ing to no one, and thinking that there is nothing which 
is above his comprehension. And of thist- caste, we 
shall discover were the Jews: for whereas they ought 
readily to have received the words of our Saviour, 
whose divine virtue and power had been evinced to 
them by the evidence of his miracles, and had any 
things appeared difficult, they should have' asked a 
solution of them ; they are seen to act quite contrary- 
wise. With one voice they addressed to G od, with great 
impiety, the language: Hoiv can this man give us 
his flesh to eat? And they reflected not that nothing 
is impossible with God. But if thou, O Jew! con- 
tinuest yet to urge this How, I will in like manner ask 
thee how the rod of Moses was changed into a serpent; 
how the waters were changed into the nature of blood. 
Wherefore, it would have much more become you to be- 
lieve Christ, and humbly to ask of him whatever seemed 
difficult, than sottishly to exclaim : How can this man 
give us his flesh to eat? Do you not see that, when 
such language is uttered, great arrogance is manifest- 
ed? For our part, let us derive great instruction from 
the iniquity of others 5 and cherishing a firm faith in 
these mysteries, let us never, on so sublime a point, 
in words express, or in thoughts entertain this How. . . 
Let us receive the body of life itself, that life which 
for us has dwelt in our body; and let us drink his 
sacred blood for the remission of our sins, in order 
to partake of that immortality which is in him: believ- 
ing Christ to be the priest and the victim, him that 
offers and is offered."* 

* S. Cyril. Alexandr. Comment in Joann. L. iv.; — et Homil. 
in Mysticam Ccenam. 



104 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



There is another passage of the same holy doctor, 
which must have an immense weight with every one, 
as we find it inserted among the acts of the general 
Council of Ephesus; a circumstance which, from the 
number of bishops who composed that venerable as- 
sembly, gives us at once two hundred authoritative 
witnesses of the belief held by the ancient Church on 
the Eucharist. That passage runs thus: " We offer 
in the churches the holy, vivifying and unbloody sac- 
rifice ; receiving the body which is presented to us, 
and likewise the precious blood, not as of a mere ordi- 
nary man, but as having been made the proper body 
and blood of the Divine Word."* The three hundred 
and eighteen bishops of the first general Council of 
Nice in 325, had previously expressed their belief in 
the same dogma, by enacting this decree; 66 No canon 
of the Church, nor custom allows that those who have 
not the power of offering the sacrifice, should present 
the body of Christ to those by whom it is offered, "t 
In fine, we have another splendid testimony of the 
faith of ancient times, in these words of the second 
Council of Nice, which, though they have been already 
quoted, appear to us fully deserving of being cited 
again in this place: " Never has it been said by our 
Lord, or by the Apostles, or by the Fathers, that the 
unbloody sacrifice offered by the priests, is only an 
image of Christ, but they have called it his true body 
and blood. The elements have indeed the name of 
antitypes before they are sanctified; but after the con- 
secration, they are called, they are held to be, and 
they really are the body and the blood of Christ. "J It 



* Apud Labbeum, vol. viii. p. 825. 

t Cone. Nic. I. Can. IS. J Cone. Nic. II. Act. 6. 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 105 

is true, the second Council of Nice, was held only to- 
wards the end of the eighth century, (in 787); still, no 
one will deny that the three hundred and fifty bishops 
who were present at it, had better means to ascertain., 
and were better qualified to attest, the antiquity and 
apostolic origin of the doctrine of the real presence and 
transubstantiation unanimously taught in their dioceses, 
than the opponents of that same /doctrine, who have 
come so many centuries later. Moreover, if any one 
desires to have? not more authentic, but more ancient 
testimonies concerning the same truth, he may be 
easily satisfied by similar quotations from the Liturgies 
which have always been used in the Church, from the 
earliest ages. 

The Roman Liturgy, which is believed to come 
originally from St. Peter, directs the priest to pray- 
thus, immediately before the consecration: 66 We be- 
seech thee, God! to cause that this oblation may be 
in all things blessed, admitted, ratified, reasonable 
and acceptable; that it may become for us the body 
and blood of thy beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ." 

Liturgy of Jerusalem, also called the Liturgy of 
St, James: "Have mercy on us, God the Father 
Almighty, and send thy Holy Spirit, the lord and giver 
of life, equal in dominion to thee and to thy Son; who 
descended in the likeness of a dove on our Lord Jesus 
Christ; who descended on the holy Apostles in the 
likeness of tongues of fire: that coming, he may make 
this bread the life-giving body, the saving body, the 
heavenly body, the body giving health to souls and 
bodies, the body of our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus 
Christ, for the remission of sins, and eternal life to 
those who receive it; amen. And may make what is 
mixed in this chalice, the blood of the New Testament, 
10 



106 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



the saving blood, the life-giving blood, the heavenly 
blood, the blood giving health to souls and bodies, the 
blood of our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christy 
amen." 

Liturgy of Alexandria, called also the Liturgy of 
St. Mark: 64 O Lord, our God! send down upon us, 
and upon this bread and this chalice, thy Holy Spirit ; 
that he may sanctify and consecrate them, as God Al- 
mighty ; and may make the bread indeed the body, 
and the chalice the blood of the New Testament of 
the very Lord, and God, and Saviour Jesus Christ.' 9 

Ambrosian Liturgy ', which was in use at Milan, 
when St. Ambrose was elected bishop of that see in 
374, and to which he made some additions, though no 
substantial ones: 4k Receive, most merciful Father, 
this holy bread, that it may be made the body; .... 
and this chalice, that it may be made the blood of thy 
only begotten Son." 

Liturgy of St. Basil, or Syriac Liturgy: " O 
Lord ! may thy Holy Spirit come down upon us, and 
upon these gifts which we have presented, and may he 
sanctify them, and make this bread the glorious body; 
and this chalice the precious blood of our Lord Jesus 
Christ." 

Liturgy of Constantinople, called also the Liturgy 
of St. John Chrysostom: 6 ' Bless, Lord, the holy 
bread ; make indeed this bread the precious body of 
thy Christ. Bless, O Lord! the holy chalice, and 
what is in this chalice, the precious blood of thy 
Christ; changing by the Holy Spirit." 

In a word, let all the Liturgies, Greek, Arabic, 
Latin, Gallican, and others, be perused; in all of 
them will be found prayers addressed to the Almighty, 
that he would consecrate, by his Holy Spirit, the gifts 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



107 



offered, and make them the body and blood of his Son; 
which is exactly the Catholic dogma of the real pre- 
sence and transubstantiation. Consequently, it is a 
truth as plain as day-light, that the admission of this 
doctrine in the Church is as ancient as it has always 
been universal; that there was no other doctrine in 
the primitive times; that it must have come necessari- 
ly from a common source, viz. the preaching and the 
injunctions of the Apostles; and, by an ultimate and 
unavoidable consequence, that it is a part of the divine 
revelation.* 



CHAPTER III. 

PROOFS FROM THE UNANIMOUS BELIEF OF ALL 
CHRISTIAN SOCIETIES, THE PROTESTANTS ALONE 
EXCEPTED. 

It is well known that, besides the great number of 
Catholics spread throughout the east, there exist seve- 
ral other societies of Christians, some of which, like 
those of the Nestorians and Eutychians, separated 
themselves from the Catholic Church, during the course 
of the fifth century, and others, like the Russians and 
schismatic Greeks, some centuries later. Not long- 
after the rise of the Protestant reformation, the Lu- 
therans of Germany made several attempts to gain the 

* See, on that subject, Abbe Renaudot, Liturgiarum orientalium 
collectio ; — Bishop Kenrick, Theolog. Dogmat. vol. iii.; — Bishop 
Trevern, Amicable Discussion: — F. Le Bran, Explication de la 
Messe, vols. iii. iv. v. vi.; — Bergier, Dictionnaire de Theologie, art. 
Liturgies; — Theolog, Rothom. vol. viii. De Eucharistid; — Dr. 
Poynter's Christianity, and Berington's Faith of Catholics. 



108 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



Greek Church over to their party; but all was in vain: 
their doctrine was rejected with indignation, and their 
repeated efforts to have it approved, especially towards 
the year 1574, only served to draw upon it the follow- 
ing censure from Jeremias, patriarch of Constantino- 
ple: 66 We learn that you maintain, concerning the 
Lord's Supper, opinions which we do not approve. It 
is a truth acknowledged by the holy Church, that, 
after the consecration, the bread is changed into the 
very body, and the wine into the very blood of Christ, 
by the power of the Holy Ghost. 9 ' The same doctrine 
he inculcated over again in his second answer to the 
theologians of the Protestant party ; as may be seen in 
the work published in 1584 by these theologians them- 
selves, under the title of Acta et script a theologorum 
Wittcmbergensium et Fatriarchse Const ahtinopolitani 9 
pp. 86 and 240. 

About the year 1630, the Dutch Calvinists made, 
for the same end, a new effort which seemed at first 
more successful, but soon turned to their own confu- 
sion. A certain Cyril Lucar, who had imbibed the 
Protestant principles in his travels through Europe, 
having been subsequently raised by means of intrigues 
and money to the patriarchal chair, first of Alexan- 
dria, and then of Constantinople, published in his own 
name, a Calvinian profession of faith. This was no 
sooner known, than the Greeks arose against this hire- 
ling and false pastor; he was deposed, and his doc- 
trine was solemnly condemned in a Council held at 
Constantinople in 1638, under his successor, Cyril of 
Berea. Here, three patriarchs and twenty-three ori- 
ental bishops, together with all the clergy of the impe- 
rial city, pronounced anathema against Cyril Lucar, 
"as teaching and believing that the bread and wine 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



109 



are not changed, by the blessing of the priest and the 
coming of the Holy Ghost, into the true body and 
blood of Jesus Christ." This condemnation was re- 
newed in another council and under the very next 
patriarch of Constantinople (Parthenius the Elder,) in 
1642/* 

About the same time, appeared "the orthodox con- 
fession of the Oriental Church," first drawn up by four 
Russian bishops attached to the Greek communion, 
and formally approved in 1 643 by four patriarchs and 
many other eastern bishops, to whom it was sent for 
examination and acceptance. It was printed several 
times and in different places, even in Holland and 
Germany, for instance, at Leipsig, A. D. 1695. In 
this book then, so unanimously acknowledged for a 
public confession of faith, the Greek Church thus ex- 
presses her belief relative to the holy Eucharist : " No 
sooner are the words of consecration pronounced, than 
the transubstantiation takes place, the bread being 
changed into the true body of Christ, and the wine 
into his true blood; and in virtue of the divine will, 
there remains nothing of the bread and wine, except 
the appearances." 

Still more numerous were the authentic declara- 
tions, not only of the Greek Church, but also of the 
other Christian societies of the east, concerning their 
belief of the real presence and transubstantiation, 
w r hen, under the reign of Louis XIV, it was called in 

* See, for abundant proofs of these facts, as well as of the authen- 
ticity of the many documents which we shall adduce in this chapter : 
Perpetuite de la Foi, vols. i. and iii.; — F. Le Brun, Explication de 
la Messe, vols. iii. — vi.; — F. Scheffmacher, Lettres d'un Docteur 
Catholique, vii. — viii.; — and the renowned theologian Collet, in his 
treatise De Eucharistia, pt. I., ch. I. art. ii. sect. vi. 

10* 



110 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



question by the French Calvinists, especially by 
Claude, the famous minister of Charenton. This at- 
tack upon the faith which those eastern Christians 
have always held, and which they continue to hold to 
this day, filled them all with horror and indignation; 
they loudly complained of it and of its authors, calling 
it an odious temerity and imposture. They did still 
more, and the better to repel the charge, they every 
where hastened to draw up and send to France vigor- 
ous protests, the originals of which were deposited in 
the Royal and Benedictine Libraries at Paris. 

I. Greeks of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. — 
Methodius, who ascended the patriarchal chair in 
1667, gave to the French ambassador a writing signed 
with his own hand, in which he spoke thus: " The 
wickedness of some heretics in France has come to 
such a pitch, that, in order to palliate the guilt of their 
conscience, they have had the boldness to impute their 
Calvinian error to the orthodox Church of Jesus Christ 
which is spread throughout the east: waiting and 
teaching that it entirely agrees with them on the sub- 
ject of the Eucharist, and on some other of their 
opinions, which are considered amongst us as so many 
blasphemies. Wherefore I, reading these things, have 
thought myself bound to shut the mouths of persons so 
bold by making this protest. . . . We say that the 
bread and wine, after the consecration made by the 
priest, are changed from their own substance into the 
true and proper substance of Jesus Christ; and though 
the same accidents appear, there remains however 
neither bread nor wine." 

This declaration of Methodius was soon followed by 
another, the work of seven Greek metropolitans, who 
happened to be assembled at Constantinople, and who 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



Ill 



attested their belief in these terms: 44 We say, 1. 
That the li ving body of Jesus Christ, which was cruci- 
fied, which ascended into heaven, and sittetb at the 
right hand of the Father, is truly, though invisibly, 
present in the Eucharist. — 2. That the bread and 
wine, after the prayer of the priest and the conse- 
cration, are changed from their own substance into the 
real body and blood of Jesus Christ, and although the 
accidents remain and show the appearances of bread 
and wine, yet they are neither bread nor wine. — 3. 
That the Eucharist is a sacrifice for the living and the 
dead, which was instituted by Christ and has been 
transmitted to us by apostolic tradition. — 4. That 
the body of Christ is eaten whole and entire, in an im- 
passible manner, by those who receive it, worthy and 
unworthy; the former receiving it for their salvation, 

and the latter for their condemnation We, 

the children of the Oriental Church, believe without 
the least difficulty all these things with the heart, and 
confess them with the mouth, having, ever since the 
earliest antiquity, received from the Fathers and holy 
Councils the tradition which makes us so believe; and 
those who hold a different doctrine, are in a fatal and 
pernicious error. Given at Pera (a suburb of Con- 
stantinople), July 18, A. D. 1671. — Signed Bartholo- 
mew of Heraclea: — Jeremias of Chalcedon; — Me- 
thodius of Pisidia ; — Metrophanes of Cyzicum ; — 
Antony of Athens; — Joachim of Rhodes; — -and 
Neophytus of Nicomedia. 5 ' 

In the following year, 1672, the new patriarch, of 
Constantinople, Dionysius of Larissa, thought it his 
duty to evince the same zeal which his predecessors 
had displayed, in making known to foreigners the real 
doctrine of the Greek Church. In order to stamp 



112 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



greater authenticity and solemnity on his proceedings, 
he assembled no fewer than thirty-nine metropolitans, 
with whom and also with the patriarch of Alexandria, 
he issued the following declaration: "We believe 
and profess without the least doubt, concerning the 
holy sacrament of the Eucharist, that the living body 
of our Lord Jesus Christ is invisibly present by a real 
presence in the sacrament. . . . For, by the opera- 
tion of the most Holy Spirit, the bread is truly and 
properly changed, in a supernatural and ineffable man- 
ner, into the proper body of Christ, and the wine into 
his living blood: and we do believe that it is Jesus 
Christ himself, whole and entire, who offers and who 
is offered, who is received and distributed to all, and 
who is eaten whole and entire in an impassible man- 
ner. Those who receive him worthily, are vivified, 
being united to Christ himself; and those who receive 
him unworthily, are condemned. This sacrament is 
worthy of a true adoration, and is offered in sacrifice 
for all the orthodox Christians, living and dead." — 
This declaration is signed by the patriarch Dionysius 
and forty other prelates. 

II. The Greeks of the Patriarchate of Jlntioch, 
were not less eager than the clergy of Constantinople, 
in testifying their belief of the real presence and tran- 
substantiation. In an authentic act, written and 
sealed at Damascus on the third of May, 1673, they 
expressed themselves thus: " The Lord Messiah, who 
is omnipotent, having taken bread in his sacred hands, 
having blessed it, and broken, and given to his disci- 
ples, saying, " take and eat, this is my body, which is 
broken for the remission of your sins 5" then having 
taken the chalice, and having blessed it, and given to 
his disciples, saying; "Drink ye all of this; this is 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



113 



my blood of the New Testament, shed for you, and 
for many, for the remission of sins:" it ought to be 
admitted that the bread and wine were transferred 
from their own substance into the substance of the 
body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that, 
what he himself did, he gave to the priests the power 
to do, by this mighty word : "Do this for the com- 
memoration of me." As for us, we profess with a 
steady faith, that the bread and the wine laid on the 
holy table, are transferred and changed from their 
proper substance of bread and wine, and that they 
pass into the proper and true substance of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, in virtue of the substantial word which 
is pronounced upon them, viz.; this is my body — this 
is my blood; and that, after this, there remains nothing 
of the bread and wine, except the appearances. And 
as the Messiah was truly in the womb of the Virgin, 
after she had conceived him by the power of the Holy 
Ghost, so he is likewise in the breast of those who 
receive him, being the salvation of those who receive 
him worthily, and the condemnation of those who re- 
ceive him unworthily." This attestation is signed by 
the patriarch Neophytus, by five archbishops, and by 
many priests, deacons and laymen. 

It had been preceded a few years before (A. D. 1668) 
by another act of the same kind, which, although less 
solemn, is scarcely less valuable. "We ought to 
profess," it says, "that the most holy sacrament of 
the Eucharist is, in virtue of the divine consecration, 
truly and substantially the body and blood of Christ. 
This divine consecration changes the substance of the 
bread into the substance of the body, and the substance 
of the wine into the substance of the blood. — Nor is 
it proper to inquire how this is done, any more than it 



114 



FROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



is proper curiously to investigate how Christ changed 
water into wine in Cana of Galilee." — After estab- 
lishing in the same forcible way several other points 
of the Catholic doctrine, the authors of this declaration, 
conclude thus : 64 Such is the belief of us all orthodox 
Greeks ; and so we have been taught by our Fathers. 
This doctrine we have received from them, and shall 
for ever hold, and there is none amongst us, nor ever 
was, bold enough to contradict it. This is the ap- 
proved faith and the true profession." — Here follow 
the signatures of six curates of the patriarchate of An- 
tioch, with two seals. 

III. Russians or Muscovites, whose religious belief 
is otherwise known to be the same with that of the 
Greek Church. M. de Pompone, the French ambas- 
sador at the court of Sweden, anxious to ascertain 
their doctrine on the subject of the Eucharist, applied 
for information to M. Lilienthal, the Swedish resident 
near the Czar at Moscow. This resident, or consul, 
requested Paisius Ligaridius, a prelate of remarkable 
learning and abilities, to give him an express declara- 
tion on this point; and he actually obtained a very 
extensive answer in writing, dated November, 1666, 
in which, among other things, it was said : 

M We, (namely, the members of the Grseco-Russian 
Church,) do confess and believe, that the bread and 
the wine laid on the altar are changed and converted 
into the body and the blood of Christ, by a secret 
power which exceeds all human language. . . . This 
is not a fanciful metamorphosis, nor a fictitious change, 
but a true and perfect transubstantiation, (verissima 
transuhstantiatio,) by which the whole substance of 
the bread is converted into the body of our Lord, and 
the whole substance of the wine is changed into the 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



115 



blood of Christ; so that there does not remain a single 
atom of the substance of the bread and wine, and only 

their accidents or visible appearances remain 

For that reason, therefore, does the Church our mother 
call this change transubstantiation; a word as justly 
derived from the Gospel, 5 ' (that is, from the words of 
our Saviour, when, after having taken in his hands 
bread and wine, he converted them into his body and 
blood, saying :) " this is my body — this is my blood 
as the word consubstantial is derived from these other 
words of Christ: " I and the Father are one." 

" The Eucharist is not only a sacrament, but also a 
sacrifice — the sacrifice of the Mass, through which 
the price of our redemption once purchased on the 
cross is applied to us, not by way of justification as in 
the sacraments, but by way of propitiation. . . . The 
body of Christ is daily offered and immolated at Mass, 
not in a bloody manner, but by an unbloody though 
real oblation, through the ministry of the priests." 

The Swedish Minister through whom this valuable 
document was obtained, added to it his own testi- 
mony, and declared that he could not conceive why 
there should be any doubt entertained about the belief 
of the Muscovites in transubstantiation, since public 
marks of that belief were daily given in the streets of 
Moscow, the people prostrating themselves on the 
ground, in order to adore the Blessed Sacrament when 
it is carried to sick persons. 

There exists another written attestation of nearly 
the same date, which was forwarded to the archbishop 
of Sens by a priest of Moscow and three other persons 
belonging to the retinue of the Russian ambassador, 
and in which they said : "In the name of our God, 
Father, Son and Holy Ghost. We, the undersigned, 



116 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



hold and testify that, after the priest has pronounced 
the words of God upon the bread and wine, there is no 
longer bread and wine, but the essential body and the 
essential blood of Jesus Christ our God. The appear- 
ance of bread and wine is perceived, but we must ac- 
knowledge in that holy mystery the body and blood of 
our Saviour; because, by these divine words, the 
bread and the wine are changed into the true body 
and blood of Christ the Son of God. .... This 
truth, we do believe, and are ready to lay down our 
lives for it." — Here follow, in the original, four sub- 
scriptions, the first of which is that of the priest whom 
we have mentioned, and whose name was Juan Irva- 
nouvitz. 

IV. Armenians, — We shall also produce three 
declarations of the belief of that numerous and widely 
spread nation, which reckons among its members many 
partisans of the errors of Eutyches. * The first was 
delivered in the most regular and authentic form? 
by twelve Armenian bishops and priests residing at 
Aleppo, in these words: "We, the undersigned 
bishops and priests, do testify against the errors of 
certain heretics, that this is the faith and doctrine of 
all the churches of our communion concerning the 
body of Christ in the holy EucharisL We profess 
and firmly believe, as we have hitherto always be- 
lieved together with the other Catholics, that the body 
and the blood of Christ are truly contained under the 
species of the consecrated bread $ since the Lord said 
that he gave to his Apostles his body, which he was 

* Eutyches, the superior of a large monastery near Constantino- 
ple, denied the distinction of the two natures, divine and human, in 
Christ. His heresy was condemned in the general Council of 
Chalcedon, A. D. 451. 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



117 



going to deliver for us on the altar of the cross. 
Hence, we condemn as heretics all those who have 
asserted, that the bread and wine have been given us 
only as a figure of the body and blood of Christ. Af- 
terwards, we believe that the nature of the bread and 
wine is really and substantially changed into the body 
and blood of our Saviour, in virtue of the divine words 
which the priest pronounces over the things offered; so 
that there remains nothing at all of the bread and 
wine, except the form and the other accidents. Then 
we adore, by the worship of Latria, Christ residing in 
the holy Eucharist, and we offer, in the most holy 
sacrifice of the Mass, for the remission of sins of both 
the living and the dead, that very same body which 
was crucified, and that blood which was shed on 

Mount Calvary If any one, in his rashness, 

dares to contradict these things, let him be anathema. 
Given at Aleppo, March 1, in the year of the Arme- 
nians 1117, of the Latins 1668." 

A question having been proposed, on the same sub- 
ject and about the same time, to an Armenian patri- 
arch, he gave the following answer: 6 'We have heard 
that it has been asserted by some persons, that the 
eastern Christians, those excepted who are united with 
the See of Rome, do not believe the most holy sacra- 
ment of the Eucharist to be the true body of Christ; 
and we much wonder at the folly and boldness of these 
persons, who thus presume to speak of what they do 
not know. For, all the eastern Christians of this time 
believe with unshaken and unhesitating faith, that in 
the sacrifice of the Mass, the bread is truly changed 
into the body, and the wine into the blood of our Lord 
Jesus Christ; nay, they never had any doubt about it, 
and never yielded to that infidelity which, as we hear, 
11 



118 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



is now professed by some nominal Christians. We 
therefore do assure you, that we Armenians have re- 
ceived from our ancient patriarchs, ever since the 
Council of Nice (the epoch of their conversion to 
Christianity) till the present time, this article of faith 5 
having, moreover, the following invocation in our 
liturgy, besides the words of consecration : Almighty 
Father, send down thy Holy Spirit, and by his co- 
operation change this bread into the body, and this 
wine into the blood of our Lord, God and Saviour 
Jesus Christ. Behold here, that these tenets which 
we hold and believe, are the same with those of the 
Roman Church, except some ceremonies in which we 
differ. 5 ' This declaration is signed by the patriarchy 
called Haviadour, and by an Armenian doctor, who 
seems to have been the companion of his travels. 

Shortly after this, another splendid attestation to 
the same effect was sent to France, from the patriarch 
and bishops of the Armenians in Cilicia. Their faith 
and doctrine on the Eucharist were expressed in these 
terms: "We firmly hold and believe, that the same 
body of Christ which was crucified for us and which 
sitteth at the right hand of the Father, is really, though 
invisibly, present in the Eucharist under the appear- 
ances of bread and wine; because the bread and the 
wine are converted into the true body and blood of 
Christ in such a manner, that nothing remains of these 
two elements, except the accidents. . . . This is the 
orthodox doctrine of our Church, which we have re- 
ceived, which we cherish with our whole heart and 
strength, and in which we constantly glory and rejoice. 55 
Signed Cruciador, patriarch; Paul, archbishop; Gre- 
gory, archbishop; etc. Of the Armenian era 1121, 
from the birth of Christ 1672. 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATIOX. 



119 



V. Copts and Abyssinians, or Eutychians of Egypt 
and Ethiopia. — We have an authentic testimonial of 
their faith in the real presence and transubstantiation, 
from their patriarch Matthew, who wrote thus to the 
purpose: "I, the abject Matthew; by the incompre- 
hensible grace of God, patriarch of the great city of 
Alexandria, and of the provinces of Egypt, Ethiopia, 
Nubia, etc. address myself to all persons full of charity 
who will see and read this writing. We have been 
informed that the heretics of France obstinately attack 
the truth of the holy Eucharist, saying that Christ is 
not really present in it, but only in figure. They 
say likewise of us, that we do not believe the change 
of the substance of the bread and wine into the sub- 
stance of the body and blood of Christ, nor his true 
presence in the Eucharist after the consecration, 

66 Wherefore, in order to remove all sort of doubt, 
we now declare to them our belief, and we tell them 
in the face of the world, that the Copts receive and 
firmly hold this true faith, that the body itself of Jesus 
Christ, which ascended into heaven and sitteth at 
the right hand of the Father, is really and substan- 
tially, though invisibly, present in the Eucharist. We 
believe on this particular point whatever the Latins 
believe, agreeing with them about it, although we are 
divided from them on some other points. We believe 
and say, that the wicked as well as the just receive the 
body of Christ in their mouth, the former indeed for 
their ruin, and the latter for their salvation. We say 
and we believe, that the bread and the wine are truly 
changed into the substance of the body of Christ and 
into the substance of his precious blood; so that the 
substance of the bread and the substance of the wine 
no longer remain after the consecration. 



120 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



" We believe and hold for certain, that this is the 
faith derived from the words of Christ our Lord, which 
has been, till the present day, transmitted to lis by the 
tradition of our ancestors, of the holy Apostles and the 
holy Fathers, and which we will preserve until death. 
We excommunicate all persons whatever who hold 
opinions contrary to this apostolic faith, and who deny 
the change of the substance of the bread into the sub- 
stance of Jesus Christ. We declare this to all those 
who shall read or attack this writing." 

VI. Surians or Eutychians of Syria, also called 
Jacobites, from Jacob Baradasus, their chief leader in 
the sixth century. On the twenty-ninth of February, 
1668, they delivered to the French Consul, and signed 
in his presence, this declaration of their faith. 

66 In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost. 1. We firmly believe that the body 
and the blood of Christ are contained truly and really 
in the Eucharist, and not in figure and virtue only, as 
some new heretics have fancied. 2. Likewise, that 
the bread and wine are, in virtue of the divine conse- 
cration, really and substantially changed and convert- 
ed, or, what is the same, transubstantiated into the 
true body and blood of Christ. 3. That Christ truly 
residing in the Eucharist, is to be adored by the wor- 
ship of Latria, (or supreme worship,) and is thus 
adored by all the faithful of our Church. 4. That in 
the sacred liturgy a true, a properly so-called and 
propitiatory sacrifice is offered to God for the living 
and the dead. 

" This is and always has been the belief of our 
churches: having received it from our ancestors, we 
preserve and shall preserve it; nor is there amongst 
us mention made and remembrance kept of any one 



AND TRANSUESTANTIATION. 121 

having ever taught otherwise. This we do testify on 
the twenty-ninth of February, 1668." — Here follow 
the subscriptions of twelve bishops or priests. 

VII. Nestorians,* — Their patriarch Joseph, resid- 
ing in the city of Diarbekir, sent to the French am- 
bassador at Constantinople, and thence to Paris, this 
attestation signed by himself and by six of his priests: 
" We, the metropolitan and priests of the Nestorian 
Church in the city of Diarbekir, have learned with 
very great surprise that a certain son of Satan in 
France, (Claude, minister of Charenton,) has dared 
offer an atrocious insult to the Oriental Church, by 
falsely asserting that we do not believe and receive 
the very great mystery of the sacred oblation. In 
order, then, to dispel the doubt which that evil spirit 
has attempted to throw into the minds of men, we say, 
we testify and declare to all who shall read this pro- 
test, that the faith and doctrine of the whole Eastern 
Church, which she holds and professes in regard to 
this holy mystery, the Eucharist, is the faith and doc- 
trine of the Gospel; the very same which has been 
received without any interruption from the earliest 
antiquity to the present day, in all the churches of the 
East. Christ has said that he gave us his body, the 
same which was to be delivered for us ; and he who 
says that Christ gives us only bread and wine as a 

* Followers of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied 
the unity of person in Christ, and the divine Maternity in the 
blessed Virgin. His doctrine was condemned by the general 
Council of Ephesus, in 431 ; but, notwithstanding this condemna- 
tion, his partisans spread themselves nearly all over the east, in 
Mesopotamia, Persia, India, etc. There now remain but few per- 
sons adhering to that error ; a great number of its abettors having 
been of late converted through the zeal and labors of Catholic mis- 
sionaries. 

11* 



122 PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 

likeness and a figure of his body and blood, is not a 
Christian. We firmly believe, that after the words 
of our Lord, which the priest pronounces by divine 
authority, the substance of the bread is changed into 
the substance of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
and that the substance of the wine is changed into the 
substance of his precious blood; so that there remains 
nothing of the bread and wine, except the accidents of 
both. We offer that sacred body crucified for us, and 
that blood shed for many and for us, that is to say, for 
the living and the dead, for the remission of their sins 
and of the punishments which they have deserved. 
We anathematize those who say the contrary, and 
who do not receive this doctrine. Given in the year 
of our Lord 1669, on the £5th of Nisan." 

VIII. Besides these separate testimonials of the 
belief and doctrine held by the several Christian so- 
cieties of the East, we have other indisputable attes- 
tations concerning all of them conjointly. One of 
those documents, relating to the various portions of 
the Greek Church, is found in the acts of the synod 
of Leucosia in Cyprus, which was celebrated during 
the year 1668 by Archbishop Nicephorus, with several 
other bishops and many distinguished clergymen. Of 
the seven canons of that synod, the first entirely be- 
longs to the question of the Eucharist, and is thus 
expressed : "If any one says that the bread and wine 
consecrated by a true priest, after they have been 
sanctified by certain words which Christ our Lord 
instituted, are not really and substantially the identi- 
cal body and blood of the Man-God, our Saviour Jesus 
Christ; but that they are a figure and a symbol, or 
that they preserve with the sacrament itself the sub- 
stance of the bread and wine ; and that these are not 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



123 



destroyed after the consecration, so as to leave only 
the accidents, and constitute a true, real and perfect 
transubstantiation, or change of the preceding substance 
of the bread and wine into the whole substance of the 
body and blood of our Lord; or that the Eucharist is 
not a real and unbloody sacrifice, propitiatory for the 
sins of the living in the sacrament of penance, as of 
the dead also ; or that these mysteries ought not to be 
adored and worshipped, exactly in the same manner 
as this same Man -God and Lord Jesus Christ is wor- 
shipped and adored, sitting at the right hand of the 
eternal Father: — let such a one be judged heretic, 
and subjected to the censures passed against heretics. 
. . . This is the orthodox faith of the Oriental Church. 
This is the doctrine of the four patriarchal sees of the 
East, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jeru- 
salem. This is also the belief of all the nations which 
adhere to our communion, of the extensive tribes of 
the Russians, of the vast empire of the Muscovites, of 
Bulgaria, of Servia, of Upper and Lower Mesia, of 
the Arabs and Egyptians, in a word, (not to mention 
other nations of Asia and Europe,) of all those who 
receive and venerate the seventh general Council." — 
Had not this been in truth the faith of these different 
nations, no doubt the Council of Cyprus, which was 
held just in the midst of them, never would nor could 
have dared attribute to them such a doctrine. 

The second general attestation, comprising all the 
schismatical societies of the East, is that of Dositheus, 
patriarch of Jerusalem, or rather of the numerous sy- 
nod over which he presided in 1672. The result of 
this assembly was a synodical treatise signed by the 
patriarch, by six archbishops, and by fifty-one priests 
and religious Dositheus sent a copy of it bearing the 



124 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



subscriptions of the same persons, to the French king 
Louis XIV; in order that it might be placed and kept 
in the royal library, as an authentic evidence of the 
faith and doctrine of the Oriental Churches.* Not 
satisfied with this, he himself caused it to be printed 
after the lapse of eighteen years, at Bucharest in Va- 
lachia; so that there never was, it maybe justly said, a 
document more authentic and more incontestable than 
this, as there is none too, more remarkable and expli- 
cit for our purpose. The patriarch and the council 
enter upon the question of the Eucharist, (Art. xvii.) by 
declaring their own unshaken belief, " that Christ is 
truly and really present in it 5 that after the consecra- 
tion of the bread and wine, the bread is changed, tran- 
substantiated, transformed and converted into the true 
and identical body of Christ, which was born in Beth- 
lehem of the Virgin, — and the wine is changed and 
transubstantiated into the identical and true blooo'of 




the Lord, which was shed upon the cross for the life 
of the world; likewise, , that after the consecration, 
there no longer remains the substance of the bread and 
wine, but the body itself and the blood of Christ in 
the appearance and figure of bread and wine, that is 
to say, under the accidents of both." Afterwards we 
find these words concerning the other Christian socie- 
ties of the East, separated from the Greeks: 66 The 
Nestorians, the Armenians, the Copts, the Syrians, 
the Ethiopians, who maintain each a peculiar heresy, 
agree how T ever with us on all that we have hitherto 
said ; as we see and learn in this holy city of Jerusa- 
lem, where there are persons from all parts of the 
world, who either dwell in it, or come hither as pil- 

* Perpeiuite de la Foi, vol. iii. p. 690. — Scheffmacher, lettre viii. 




AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



1£5 



grims, whether learned or unlearned." — If Patri- 
arch Dositheus with his numerous synod, had attri- 
buted to the aforesaid societies a doctrine which they 
did not admit, would he not have subjected himself 
to public scorn and indignation ? Had his asser- 
tion, so explicit and so unequivocal, contained a false- 
hood, would not the millions of persons concerned 
therein, have risen and loudly protested against it? 
Since therefore none did so, even after the synodical 
act was printed ; does it not follow, that the belief of 
all the Eastern Christians in the real presence and 
transubstantiation, is as well ascertained as any human 
fact has ever been or can possibly be, even for the 
most envious criticism ? 

After reading, both in this and in the preceding 
chapter, the many unquestionable testimonies which 
we have adduced in proof of the ancient tradition, 
and of the belief of foreign Churches relative to the 
holy Eucharist; will it not appear utterly astonish- 
ing to find in some modern publications, " that the 
dogma of transubstantiation was untaught by the 
Fathers, unknown to the ancient liturgies, and that it 
is maintained in the Church of Rome alone." Can 
there be an assumption more strangely bold and more 
egregiously erroneous; and should not this alone be 
deemed sufficient to show that all similar assertions 
made against the tenets of the Catholic Church, are 
totally undeserving of confidence? 

On the other hand, how sad and melancholy a thought 
must it be for our separated brethren, to find them- 
selves, among all the Christian societies that exist upon 
earth, to be the only one opposed to the dogma of tran- 
substantiation, and to be, moreover, for want of a valid 
ministry, necessarily deprived of the real presence of 



126 



PROOFS OF THE REAL PRESENCE 



Christ among them in the Eucharist! How consoling, 
on the contrary, is it for Catholics to know with entire 
certainty, not only that they are and have ever been 
possessed of this inestimable blessing, through a con- 
stant succession of duly ordained bishops and priests ; 
but likewise that all the nations of Christendom, (the 
Protestants alone excepted,) and even those societies 
which have been separated from the Latin Church for 
thirteen or fourteen centuries, agree however perfectly 
with it on the subject of the Eucharistic mystery ! Will 
it not seem to every candid inquirer, that, as Almighty 
God preserved the Jews from utter destruction, in 
order to make them, by the fulfilment of the prophe- 
cies concerning their fate, the unsuspected witnesses 
of the divinity of his Son, and of the heavenly origin of 
Christianity at large: so likewise he has preserved the 
schismatical societies of the East, in order to render 
them the unexceptionable witnesses of the antiquity, 
perpetuity and divine origin of the dogma of the real 
presence and transubstantiation ? In fact, besides 
their own concurrent and unanimous asseverations; 
besides, too, the irrefragable testimony deduced from 
their liturgies, which are substantially no other than 
the ancient liturgies quoted elsewhere, (page 106,) and 
to which we here subjoin, for fuller evidence, a few 
others in a note:* it is evident that these societies, 

* The Liturgy of Nestorius expresses itself thus : " May the 
grace of the Holy Ghost come, and dwell, and rest on this oblation ; 
may he sanctify it and make it the body and blood of our Lord Je- 
sus Christ .... that the receiving of these holy mysteries may 
avail all who receive them, unto eternal life. — May we be worthy 
with a pure conscience, to partake of the body and blood of Christ." 

The Coptic Liturgy, called also the Liturgy of St. Basil, contains 
these words : " O Lord Jesus Christ, we beg and intreat thy good- 
ness, O lover of mankind, look down on this bread and on this cha- 



AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



127 



having been separated from the Latin Church, some 
for eight or ten, others for thirteen and fourteen cen- 
turies, did not receive from her, after the separation 
took place, their faith and doctrine on the Eucharist: 
but that they, as well as the Latin Church herself, re- 
ceived it from the primitive Church, to which their 
ancestors belonged. 

Another very striking circumstance, which presents 
itself to our notice in this unanimous belief of the 
Eastern societies, is that they ground their faith, just 
as Catholics do, not only on apostolical tradition, 
but also on the words of our Saviour, particularly 
those which he used in instituting the Eucharist. 
Now, this very circumstance affords us an additional 
and invincible proof, that the construction put by 
Protestants upon those words is wofully wrong, 
since no Christian society ever thought of it before 
the time of the pretended reformation ; and that the 
interpretation of Catholics must necessarily be the 
right one, since we find it universally admitted by 
those Christians of the East who are their adversa- 
ries on other points. What else but the evidence of 

lice, which we have placed on this thy sacerdotal table : bless them, 
sanctify them, and consecrate them ; change them, so that indeed 
this bread may become thy holy body, and that which is mixed in 
this chalice, thy precious blood." 

The Alexandrian Liturgy, or Liturgy of St. Gregory, says : " Do 

thou, O Lord, by thy voice, change these offerings Do thou 

send down thy Holy Spirit, that coming, he may sanctify and 
transmute these precious offerings and holy gifts into the very body 
and blood of our redemption ; and may he make indeed this bread to be 
thy body, O Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ — and this chalice, 
thy precious blood of the New Testament. Amen." 

See also, besides the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, followed by 
the Russians and Greeks, that of the Armenians cited above, p. 118. 



128 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



truth itself could have induced so many different, nay 
opposite societies, to understand exactly in the same 
manner the expression of a mystery otherwise so sub- 
lime, and so much elevated above man's senses and im- 
agination ? Again, since those societies were adverse, 
not only to the Catholic Church which had condemned 
them, but also to each other, how could they have 
unanimously agreed in attaching the same literal mean- 
ing to the words of the Gospel which relate to the 
Eucharist, were not that meaning the only one which 
these sacred words can receive? 

With this forcible consideration, we shall close the 
series of proofs which we have undertaken to give of 
the Catholic dogma of the Eucharist. Nothing now 
remains to be done for the completion of our task, but 
to refute in a few words the imaginary difficulties 
which Protestants frequently urge against this impor- 
portant and divine truth. 



CHAPTER IV. 

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

From all that has been hitherto said, we are entitled 
to conclude that the difficulties which the enemies of 
transubstantiation urge against this dogma, are but 
vain sounds and harmless weapons. Since they all con- 
tradict the word of God understood in its plain and 
obvious sense, the tradition delivered by the Apostles, 
the doctrine contained in the liturgies and taught by 
the Fathers, and the belief of all nations and ages ; 
hence a candid mind cannot possibly discover in them 
even a shadow of probability. TRUTH cannot be 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



129 



opposed to itself: " For the Son of God," says St. 
Paul, " was not, IT IS. and, IT IS NOT; but, IT 
IS, was in him."* It being incontestably proved, 
from the various channels of divine revelation, that 
Christ, by the change of the Eucharistic elements into 
his sacred body and blood, is really and substantially 
present in the Eucharist, most assuredly it cannot be 
proved, either from the same or from other sources, 
that he is not present there, and that there is no such 
thing as transubstantiation. 

Here then we might, with propriety, close our re- 
marks, and disregard objections so powerless; still as 
these objections might perhaps, by being continually 
repeated with affected assurance, make undue impres- 
sion on persons little acquainted with the proofs of our 
doctrine; it will not be amiss to show, once for all, 
how completely groundless they are in themselves, 
and how utterly opposed to all the principles of the 
Christian faith. 

All the difficulties brought against the doctrine of 
transubstantiation, may be reduced to two classes. 
The first includes those which have no existence ex- 
cept in the imagination of our opponents, and spring 
from no other source than an intense desire of many 
among them to find fault with the Catholic Church, 
whereby they are led to impute to her doctrines which 
she never admitted. Such, among others, are the fol- 
lowing ; " that we believe the existence in the Eucha- 
rist of sweetness, and nothing sweet, of whiteness, 
and nothing white ; — the digestion of Christ's body in 
the stomach of the communicant; — the reality of an 
indefinite number of human bodies in the consecrated 



12 



* 2 Corinth, i. 19. 



130 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



hosts;" — and other like absurdities which the adver- 
saries of the Catholic dogma of the Eucharist are fond 
of creating, in order to have the satisfaction of refuting 
them, and to enjoy the advantage of an easy triumph. 
Nothing indeed is less dearly purchased than a triumph 
of this kind; but less witticism, and more candor in the 
authors of the above charges, would have taught them 
the futility of their statements, and the egregious mis- 
takes which they commit in imputing to Catholics the 
offsprings of their own prolific and erring fancy. 

Catholics, then, do not maintain either directly or 
indirectly, that consecrated hosts contain an indefinite 
number of human bodies ; they, on the contrary, be- 
lieve and teach, that it is one and the same body of 
Christ which the divine omnipotence thus renders 
present in so many places at once; as the divine na- 
ture itself is not only present every where, but also is 
every where whole and entire, without ceasing to be 
one and the same divine nature. — Neither do they 
admit that there is in the Eucharist sweetness and 
nothing sweet, whiteness and nothing white; they 
merely say that the color, taste, shape, and other acci- 
dents which remain after the consecration, are no 
longer attached to any substance, and that they are 
preserved in this condition by the will and power of 
God, for the exercise of our faith. — Nor do they 
assert that mere appearances and properties have the 
natural power of feeding the body, but that Almighty 
God being himself the author of transubstantiation, 
produces accordingly by his omnipotence, without the 
substance of bread and wine, exactly the same effects 
which in other cases he produces through the natural 
agency of these elements; and they know nothing 
more contrary to sound philosophy than to deny such 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



131 



a power in God, the Creator and Sovereign Lord of 
heaven and earth. In fine, instead of the shocking 
assertion that "the body and blood of Christ are di- 
gested in the stomach their doctrine, always con- 
sistent with itself, is merely this; that Christ ceases to 
be present under the species, as soon as they are so 
altered as to present no longer the form of bread and 
wine.* 

For the same reason, the sad events which may 
happen to, and the irreverences or sacrilegious out- 
rages which may be committed against the holy Eu- 
charist, though the former are a very great misfortune 

* It is painful to observe, that the author of the " Conquest of 
Mexico" has stooped so low beneath the dignity of a historian, as 
to make a similar attack upon the Catholic doctrine. In a certain 
part of his work, he introduces Montezuma establishing a compari- 
son, and finding perhaps a monstrous similarity between the reception 
of the body of Christ by Catholics and the bloody feasts of cannibals. 
Had Mr. Prescott attended but once at our celebration and partici- 
pation of the sacred mysteries, he would have easily perceived the 
wide difference with regard to the mode of manducation, which 
exists between et feeding upon the flesh of our fellow mortals and 
eating the flesh of our Creator," and perhaps would have abstained 
from designating by the same epithet the monstrous practice of the 
ancient Mexicans, and the sacred banquet instituted by Christ, in 
which he gives us indeed, according to his promise, his real body 
and blood, but under a veil, in a preternatural manner, and in order 
only that they may become in us the seed of eternal life. Mr. 
Prescott, we are afraid, is of the number of those who take for un- 
contested truths, the dictates of long standing prejudice. — As to 
what he calls "the ludicrous effect" of the belief of transubstantia- 
tion in Spain, without mentioning any thing in particular, we are 
unable to guess what may be the object of his censure; but this at 
least we know for certain, that nothing is so ludicrous as the assu- 
rance of an author who presumes to judge of religious doctrines and 
practices, whilst he shows himself to be so imperfectly acquainted 
with their real character. # 



132 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



and the latter enormous sins in themselves, merely 
affect, and destroy or profane the sacred species, 
but do not hurt in the least the body of Christ, which 
as well in the Eucharist as in heaven, is absolutely im- 
passible. 66 Christ rising again from the dead," says 
the Apostle, " dieth now no more; death shall no 
more have dominion over him." (Rom. vi. 9.) Hence, 
whatever may happen to the veil which covers him, 
whatever even may be attempted by an impious profa- 
ner against his sacred person in the Eucharist, he is 
now for ever out of the reach of sufferings, tortures 
and sorrows. — But though he should be hurt by these 
deplorable accidents or atrocious crimes, we would 
have no greater difficulty to believe that our blessed 
Saviour is yet willing, for the sake of his children, to 
expose himself to such indignities, than to admit with 
Protestants themselves that, for the sake of sinners, 
he submitted to still greater ones during the course of 
his passion, when he was buffeted, spit upon, scourged 
and nailed to a cross; or that he once suffered his 
most implacable enemy, the evil spirit, to touch his 
sacred body, and transport him from place to place, as 
we read in the Gospel.* 

Thus, all the difficulties against the dogma of the 
real presence and transubstantiation which we have 
comprised under the first head, fall of themselves to 
the ground. Those of the second class, though appa- 
rently more specious, as being taken from the real im- 
port and consequences of this dogma, and for this rea- 
son worthy of a fuller discussion, are in reality neither 
less unreasonable nor less easily refuted. Let us 
commence with the one most commonly urged by Pro- 



« * Matt. iv. 5 — 8. 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



133 



testants, namely, the opposition, real or pretended, 
between the belief of transubstantiation and the evi- 
dence of our senses. These last, they maintain, unani- 
mously testify to us the presence of bread and wine in 
the Eucharist, whereas, according to the Catholic 
doctrine, there is after the consecration no other sub- 
stance than the body and blood of Christ. Hence, 
forgetting the words of the Gospel which inculcate 
this doctrine, they come to the conclusion, that not 
seeing our Lord in the Eucharist, they cannot believe 
in his real presence; saying, after the example of the 
once incredulous St. Thomas : " Unless I see, I will 
not believe." * 

But indeed, what can be more unreasonable than an 
assumption, according to which, before we admit any 
thing as true, we must perceive it with our own eyes? 
What will become of the science of history, of social 
order and intercourse, of religion itself, if we follow 
no other rule but the testimony of our senses? In that 
case, nearly all historical books should be rejected and 
despised, since what they contain, generally refers to 
personages whom we never saw, and to events which 
we did not witness. None but those who have visited 
in person London, Paris, Constantinople, and Pekin, 
would be sufficiently qualified to believe the existence 
of those cities. According to this system, we ought 
neither to admit in man a spiritual being quite distinct 
from the body, which we call mind or soul, as we 
never beheld it ; nor should even the Apostles and 
first disciples who conversed with our Lord, have 
believed in his divinity, since their corporal eyes per- 
ceived in him nothing but his human nature. So it is 

* John xx. 25. 

1£* 



134 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



likewise, both in religion and nature, with innumera- 
ble other truths, which, not being seen in themselves, 
must also be denied, if we follow the principle above 
mentioned ; a principle therefore, than which none can 
be more erroneous, more pernicious and capable of 
leading us into the most deplorable excess of scepti- 
cism and incredulity. 

Let it not be objected against this conclusion and 
the examples just adduced, that they are different from 
the present case; that, for instance, the divinity of 
Christ could not and cannot be denied, because we have 
for it, besides other sure evidences, his own repeated 
assertion, the truth of which was superabundantly 
proved by all the wonders and miracles of his life ; 
for, this we have also in favor of the dogma of his real 
and substantial presence in the Eucharist, as we learn 
from the various channels of divine revelation. Nor 
let it be said either, that the existence of a spiritual 
and reasonable soul in every man is demonstrated from 
a variety of effects which fall under our eyes and 
notice, and that the reality of foreign cities and past 
events is attested by those who visited the one and wit- 
nessed the others; as if the dogma of the real presence 
and transubstantiation had no support equal to this! 
but, if we thus receive the declaration of men or the 
result of their attentive observation, shall we not also 
receive the infallible testimony of the Son of God, 
when he speaks to us about the reality of his flesh and 
blood in the Eucharist? Is he less entitled to credit 
than his creatures? Is not his sacred word, though 
it should seem contrary to the express report of our 
eyes and taste, worthy of our most implicit confi- 
dence, and of the fullest homage of our understanding 
and our will? So far indeed is Christian faith from 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



135 



depending and resting upon our sight or personal ex- 
perience, that, on the contrary, St. Paul calls it "the 
conviction of things that appear not,' 9 and says it 
" cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of 
Christ."* He teaches the same of the virtue of hope, 
of which faith is the foundation, saying : "Hope that 
is seen, is not hope; for what a man seeth, why doth 
he hope for?" — and our Saviour himself had declared : 
"Blessed are they that have not seen, and have be- 
lieved." t 

It is, therefore, certain that, should our Lord strict- 
ly bid us renounce and reject altogether the testimony 
of our senses concerning the Eucharist, even then we 
ought to submit without the least hesitation, and readily 
say with a great doctor and a great saint: 

Sight, taste, feeling, are deceived in thee ; 

But hearing alone is sufficient to make us believe without 

any fear of error : 
I believe whatever the Son of God has said ; 
Nothing is more incontestably true than this word of truth .J 

But, besides this, if we consider the subject in another 
point of view, we shall find that there is no real oppo- 
sition between the dogma of transubstantiation and the 
testimony of our senses. According to the former, 
there is no longer the substance of bread and wine in the 
Eucharist after the consecration; according to the lat- 
ter, the appearances or outward qualities of the bread 
and wine still remain. Now both these things are 

* Heb. xi. 1. — Rom. x. 17. f &°™> viii. 24. — John xx. 29. 
J Visus, tactus, gustus, in te fallitur ; 
Sed auditu solo tuto creditur. 
Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius ; 
Nil hoc veritatis verbo verius. — S. Thorn. Aquin, 



136 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



true; we know the one from the infallible word of God, 
and we really see the other, namely those appearances 
or accidents which truly remain, though the substance 
of the bread and wine no longer subsists. Thus, we 
are by no means obliged to renounce the testimony of 
our senses, since it has for its object only those exte- 
rior qualities which continue to appear in the Eucha- 
rist; we are merely commanded by the word of him 
whose dominion over us is sovereign and eternal, to 
alter our judgment with regard to the substance itself 
that is present under the eucharistic veils after the 
consecration, and to believe it to be no other than the 
substance of our Saviour's body and blood; since he 
himself has said it, who can neither deceive nor be 
deceived. This is what St. Cyril of Jerusalem so well 
explained to his neophytes in the following words, 
which we have quoted elsewhere: 6 6 Judge not of 
the thing by your taste, but by faith assure your- 
self without the least doubt, that you are honored with 
the body and blood of Christ. . . This knowing, and of 
this being assured that what appears to be bread, is 
not bread, though it be taken for bread by the taste, 
but the body of Christ ; and that what appears to be 
ivine, is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but 
the blood of Christ."* 

And let it not be feared from this, that all certainty 
about the reality of material substances in general, 
should be impaired by the belief of transubstantiation. 
Such a fear would be as groundless, and the conclu- 

* Mi) drro rr)g yevastog Kpivrjg rd -Kpaypa, dXX' and rrjg 7riarecog rrXrjpo- 
(j)opov dvevdotaartog acojxarog Kal aljxarog Xpicrov Kara^itodeig . . . Tavra 
[xaOtov, Kal T:\ripotyopriQ8lg cog 6 tyaivdjAEvog aprog, ovk aprog iarlv, ei Kal rrj 
yevcrei aiadrjrdg, dXXa crcofxa 'X.piaroij' Kal b 4>aiv6ix£vog olvog, ovk olvog iariv, 
ei Kal i\ yevatg rovro PovXerai, dXXa ai/xa ^Lpicrrov. — Catech. Mystag. 
iv. n. 6. 9. 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



137 



sion drawn from it as illogical, as if one, reflecting 
upon the miracle which stopped the waters of the Jor- 
dan, or upon the resurrection of Lazarus, were to 
apprehend lest all other rivers should cease to flow, or 
lest the immense multitude of the dead should, before 
the end of the world, suddenly come forth from their 
graves, re-appear amongst us, and claim their respec- 
tive property from the actual possessors. The great 
diversity of times in which tran substantiation is effect- 
ed, does not make any difference in the two cases 
with regard to the looical inference to be drawn from 
them, since it is exclusively in the Eucharistic sacrifice 
that this great prodigy takes place. It is only in re- 
ference to the Eucharist, that Christ our Lord has 
forewarned us not to judge of its nature from the tes- 
timony of our bodily senses, but to believe, accord- 
ing to the plain import of his words, that there is no 
other substance in it after the consecration, except 
his body and blood, although the appearances of 
bread and wine still remain. As no admonition of 
the kind has been given us about the other objects 
by which we are surrounded, there is no reason what- 
ever to doubt their reality, when ascertained by the 
uniform testimony of our senses. The natural incli- 
nation which prompts us to believe in the existence of 
these objects, preserves all its efficacy ; and we are, 
notwithstanding the transubstantiation which takes 
place in the Eucharist, as sure that the other visible 
things preserve their own material substances, as we 
are that rivers continue to flow into the sea, notwith- 
standing the miracle of the Jordan ; and that the 
bodies of the dead continue to sleep in their graves in 
expectation of the day of judgment, notwithstanding 
the resurrection of Lazarus. 



138 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



This, however, does not suffice to satisfy our dis- 
senting brethren upon the main point at issue, the 
dogma itself of the real presence and transubstantia- 
tion. To them the presence of the body of Christ, at 
the same time in heaven and on earth, — in so small 
a compass as a host or a particle thereof, — and in so 
many places at once, seems incredible and impossible. 
To them it appears that the substance of the bread and 
wine, so long at least as their outward form remains, 
cannot be changed into another substance; and they 
have learned also from physical laws and human phi- 
losophy that accidents, or exterior qualities and ap- 
pearances, cannot exist without a subject. They do 
not understand these mysteries, and therefore think 
themselves sufficiently authorized to reject them alto- 
gether. 

To these we answer, first, that exterior qualities or 
appearances, though ordinarily attached to certain 
material things, must not be confounded with the sub- 
stances themselves upon which they are made natural- 
ly to depend. We conceive without any difficulty 
that, by an act of the divine power, bodies may be de- 
prived of their natural and ordinary properties; as 
was the case with the three children in the furnace of 
Babylon, where the fire into which they were plunged 
did not so much as consume their garments (Dan. iii. 
94), and also with our Saviour and St. Peter, whilst 
they walked upon the waters of the lake of Geneza- 
reth, (Matt. xiv. 25, 29;) or that these bodies may be 
endowed with new qualities and forms, as when our 
Lord, on the day of his resurrection, came where his 
disciples were gathered together, the doors being shut 
for fear of the Jews, (John xx. 19;) and when on the 
same day he appeared in another form to two of them 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



139 



who were going into the country, (Mark xvi. 12.) 
Nay, similar wonders daily happen in petrifactions, 
where the form, the shape, and the texture even of the 
most delicate fibres, are still visible, though the parti- 
cles of the organic body have been displaced by those 
of a stony substance. 

Holy Writ and sound reason likewise teach us, that 
He, to whom all created beings and physical laws are 
subjected, can change one substance into another, as 
he did at Cana of Galilee in presence of his disciples, 
and at the court of Pharao through the ministry of 
Moses. Nor will this appear astonishing to any one 
who knows the wonderful, though natural, transforma- 
tions, that have been brought to light by the discove- 
ries of modern chemistry.* 

Concerning the other two points, multilocation and 
the greater or less extent of the same material sub- 
stance; besides our utter ignorance of the real charac- 
ter of the relation which the body of Christ in the 
Eucharist may bear to extension and locality, 1. it is 
admitted by naturalists that all the matter contained 
in the universe, a fortiori, a small portion of it, might 
be reduced to an indefinitely smaller space, and even, 
according to some, Newton, etc. to no more than a 
cubic inch: and 2. it cannot be proved that multiloca- 
tion, or simultaneous presence of the same body in 

* By adducing this and other examples of the surprising effects of 
natural laws themselves, we do not mean on any account to say 
that the Eucharistic transubstantiation takes place in the same man- 
ner, since w T e believe it to be above all the laws of nature ; but we 
intend to show, (and the above examples are well fitted for this 
purpose,) that the visible creation itself is full of w T onders and phe- 
nomena, which may be justly looked upon as beautiful analogies 
and striking emblems of the wonders daily wrought by God in the 
Eucharist. 



140 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



several places, has any thing repugnant to sound phi- 
losophy, even with regard to a human body in its ordi- 
nary condition 5 much less in reference to the glorified 
body of Christ and its sacramental mode of existence. * 
Above all, we have the infallible word of God, which 
assures us that this great prodigy is not merely possi- 
ble with him, but moreover that it does really take 
place in the Eucharistic Mystery. 

It follows from all this, that the various objections 
of Protestants against the dogma of the real presence 
and transubstantiation, being constantly based on their 
forgetfulness of the difference which exists between 
the common order of things and the extraordinary 
effects of the power of God, between the natural state 
of bodies and the preternatural state of the body of 
Christ in the Eucharist, are contrary, not only to the 
doctrines of the Christian faith, but likewise to the 
essential principles of good and sound reasoning. 

Can this, therefore, (and we here come to our second 
and chief answer,) can this be the true way of ascer- 
taining one of the most sublime mysteries of religion? 
Is it from the order of nature, from human conceptions 
and physical laws, that we are to judge of the super- 
natural and much higher order of divine revelation? 
Not knowing so much as the real essence of objects 
which are continually around us, of bodies, of matter, 
of place, of extent, and other qualities or beings even 
considered in their ordinary light; how can we pre- 
tend to know them better in reference to a super- 

*See Bellarmine, De Sacramento Eucharistice, L. iii. c. 3, 4, — 
Abbe de Lignac, in his work entitled, Presence corporelle de Vhomme 
en plusieurs lieux a la fois, prouvee possible par les principes de la 
bonne philosophic ; — and the celebrated Protestant Leibnitz, in his 
theological essays. 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



141 



natural order of things, together with that order itself 
in all its bearings and appendages? Yet, all these 
objects should be clearly and perfectly ascertained, 
before we venture to pass, not only a sweeping judg- 
ment, but even any judgment at all, on the intrinsic 
nature of the Eucharistic mystery. Otherwise, we 
would be like a man born blind, who should undertake 
to treat of the wonders of vision, which he was never 
allowed to witness, or who, not being able to form any 
idea of colors, should deny on that account their pos- 
sibility and existence. In truth, what are we all, 
without the light of faith, except miserable and blind 
creatures : " Thou knowest not, that thou art wretch- 
ed, and miserable, and poor, and blind? 9 '* — " My 
thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my 
ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted 
above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your 
ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts, "t Even 
a great Apostle exclaims: " the depth of the riches, 
of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God ! How 
incomprehensible are his judgments, and how un- 
searchable his w r ays!"i And shall we poor mortals 
refuse to admit that Almighty God knows infinitely 
more than we can imagine — can do infinitely more 
than we can comprehend? Whilst our Lord is pleased 
in his immense charity for men, to communicate him- 
self entirely to every one of the faithful through the 
mystery of the Eucharist, as he was pleased to com- 
municate himself to mankind at large through the 
mystery of the Incarnation; shall we presume to op- 
pose the designs of his infinite goodness and liberality? 
And since, moreover, he has pledged his word for it 9 



* Apoc. iii. 17. 
13 



t Isa. lv. 8, 9, 



% Rom, xi. S3, 



142 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



ought not that sacred word remove for ever all the 
difficulties to the contrary, suggested by our senses, 
our imagination, or our pride? Otherwise, if we must 
understand the nature of every thing and see that it is 
conformable to physical laws, before it becomes an 
object of our belief, upon what grounds shall we rest 
our Christian faith in the mysteries of the Trinity, the 
Incarnation, Original Sin, and many others, which are 
not less above human comprehension, than the dogma of 
transubstantion and the real presence? Nay, what will 
then become of the miracles of the Bible, the prophecies 
of the Ancient and New Testament, in a word, all the 
supernatural evidences of a divine religion ; and how 
shall we be able, consistently with the principle just 
mentioned, to avoid falling by rapid strides into natu- 
ralism, deism and complete infidelity ? 

This, Luther himself well understood and strongly 
inculcated against the enemies of the real presence. 
When he was asked how could a body be contained in 
so narrow a space as a host, and be rendered present 
in so many places at the same time, he easily reduced 
to nought all these vain difficulties raised by the proud 
reason of man against the word of God, and in his 
turn asked his opponents whether they understood how 
the Almighty preserved the Unity of his nature in the 
Trinity of his persons? How he formerly created 
heaven and earth out of nothing; how he united human 
flesh to his Eternal Son: how he caused him to be born 
of a Virgin ; how he delivered him up to death, and 
how he would raise again all men to life to the last day. 
They say, added Luther, that all the miracles of Christ 
were visible. " But who has told them that our Lord 
resolved never to perform any miracle of another kind? 
When he was conceived by the power of the Holy 



RECAPITULATION CONCLUSION. 143 



Ghost in the womb of a Virgin, was this miracle, the 
greatest of all, any way visible? Was the fulness of 
the Godhead, which dwells corporally in Jesus Christ, 
visible on earth? Do we see him sitting at the right 
hand of his Father, from whence he exercises his sove- 
reign power over the whole universe? Is this the rea- 
son which obliges them to torture, to tear in pieces, to 
crucify the words of their Master? "We do not under- 
stand, they say, how he can render them literally true. 
This proves well, indeed, that the sense of man does 
not agree with the wisdom of God; I confess it, I 
acknowledge it : but never have I known that we are 
to believe only what we perceive with our own eyes, 
or what human reason can comprehend."* 



RECAPITULATION — CONCLUSION. 

Let us now compress into a brief summary, what 
has been hitherto said in the course of this treatise. 

I. The question about the real presence and tran- 
substantiation, is not a question of abstract reasoning, 
but one of fact, to be settled, like other facts apper- 
taining to revelation, from testimony and evidence. 
This evidence, Catholics manifestly possess in the 
Scripture, in Tradition, in the writings of the Fathers, 
the acts of General Councils, in the Liturgies, and 
the unanimous belief of the most ancient societies of 
Christians. Therefore, the Catholic dogma on the 
Eucharist is as certain and undeniable as any other 
article of Religion, the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc 

* Sermo de Corp. et Sang. Christi: quod verba adhuc stent. 



144 RECAPITULATION CONCLUSION. 



II. The same dogma was always held and taught 
by the Church from the very age of the Apostles, 
exactly as it is at present; this has also been proved 
from a variety of documents and facts. Therefore 
again, it ought to be admitted as necessarily true, 
since the Church is our unerring and divinely appoint- 
ed guide in matters of faith; Christ himself having 
said: "If any one will not hear the Church, let him 
be to thee as the heathen and the publican; 5 ' (Matt, 
xviii. 16.) 

III. Hence it follows that there neither is nor can 
be any thing absurd or impossible in the Eucharistic 
mystery as admitted by Catholics. The very act of 
attempting to find any thing of the kind in it, is, to 
say the least, rash and presumptuous in the extreme : 
it is to suppose that God, the eternal and sovereign 
Truth, can reveal, and that his Church, founded upon 
the immovable rock of the true faith (Matt. xvi. 18,) 
can believe, something absurd and impossible. More- 
over, among the numberless saints, learned men and 
holy doctors, whose names adorn the pages of Church 
history, none ever discovered or even suspected such 
difficulties in the real presence and transubstantiation, 
though they knew very well the full extent of this 
mystery. Consequently, these supposed contradic- 
tions which are brought against us, do not exist, and 
never did exist ; nor will any one be more excusable 
in the sight of God for yielding to unbelief or doubt on 
their account, than were the Jews and many of our 
Lord's disciples, who, after hearing his discourse at 
Capharnaum, asked with murmurs how he could pos- 
sibly give them his flesh to eat ; and departing from 
him, ceased to belong thenceforth to his blessed com- 
pany. (John vi. 53, 61, 67.) 



RECAPITULATION CONCLUSION. 145 

IV. Let then the adversaries of the Catholic dogma 
on the Eucharist, learn at last where real impossibility 
is to be found. It is in the system of those who admit 
that God, notwithstanding his unconditional promise of 
perpetual guidance and protection, (Matt, xxviii. £0, 
and xvi. 18,) abandoned his Church so far as to let 
her substitute human traditions for divine truths, and 
fall into error, superstition, and idolatry. It is, in 
the system of those who maintain that Christ did not 
mean or intend to give us in the Eucharist his real 
body and blood, although he made use of expressions 
which plainly signify both; that likewise, the five 
inspired writers who speak of this mystery, and whose 
words every where imply the reality, intended to ex- 
press only a figure, sign or virtue of the body of our 
Saviour ; and that the same is to be said of all the 
Fathers and doctors of the Church, so as to admit all 
these learned and holy men to have constantly vied 
with each other in violating the most ordinary rules of 
language. Again, it is to be found in the system of 
those who assert that a change of doctrine may have 
taken place in the Church about the Eucharist, al- 
though the mere supposition of such a fact involves 
insuperable difficulties, and not a single document 
exists to prove the coincidence of those numberless 
disturbances which an innovation of this kind would 
unavoidably have excited; finally, in the system of 
those who are obliged to suppose, that the schismatic 
societies of the East could have anywise agreed with 
the Catholic Church in their belief of the real presence 
and transubstantiation, had it not been for the evi- 
dence of truth, manifestly contained in the words of 
Christ, in apostolic tradition, and in the faith of the 
ancient Church to which their ancestors belonged. 
13* 



146 



RECAPITULATION CONCLUSION. 



Such are, instead of the apparent difficulties of the 
Catholic doctrine, the real contradictions which are to 
be met with in the Protestant system about the Eucha- 
rist, and to which a reasonable answer never has been 
given and never will be. So true it is, as a man of 
superior mind (Bossuet) remarks, that unbelievers and 
adversaries of the sacred mysteries of religion, in order 
to discard the belief of incomprehensible truths, 
throw themselves headlong into an abyss of incompre- 
hensible errors. 

V. How different from this is the doctrine of the 
Catholic Church, with its unquestionable proofs, its 
universality, its antiquity, its perpetuity, its apostolic 
origin, its unshaken foundation in the word of God, 
and its innumerable advantages for time and eternity ! 
All these consoling characters are beautifully ex- 
pressed in the language of the Church herself, and 
particularly in the words of her last general Council, 
that of Trent, with which we shall therefore conclude 
this treatise on the Eucharistic mystery. 

Concerning the real presence, the Council " openly 
and plainly professes, that in the august sacrament of 
the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread 
and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is 
truly, really and substantially present under the ap- 
pearance of those sensible objects. Nor is there any 
repugnance in this, that our Saviour, according to his 
natural manner of existence, should always remain in 
heaven at the right hand of his Father, and that never- 
theless he should be sacramentally, though substan- 
tially, present with us in many other places, in that 
way of existence, which, though in words we can hardly 
express it, the mind illumined by faith can conceive to 
be possible to God, and which we are bound firmly to 



RECAPITULATION CONCLUSION. 147 

believe. For so all our ancestors — as many as were 
members of the true Church of Christ — who wrote on 
the subject of this most holy sacrament, openly pro- 
fessed ; that our Saviour instituted this admirable sa- 
crament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of 
the bread and wine, he declared in express and per- 
spicuous words, that he gave his own body and blood : 
which words, recorded first by the holy evangelists 
and then repeated by St. Paul, plainly convey of 
themselves this obvious and proper signification, in 
which they have been understood by the Fathers. 55 * 
Concerning the holy sacrifice of the Mass: " Al- 
though our God and our Lord Jesus Christ was about 
to offer himself once on the altar of the cross to his 
Father, that on it he might operate our eternal re- 
demption; yet, because by death his priesthood was 
not to cease, he, at his last supper, the same night in 
which he was betrayed, (1 Cor. xi. £3,) that he^might 
leave to his Church a visible sacrifice, such as the 
nature of man requires, by which the bloody sacrifice 
once to be completed on the cross should be represent- 
ed, and its memory should continue to the end of time, 
and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of 
those sins which we daily commit; declaring himself to 
be the appointed priest for ever according to the order 
of Melchisedech, he offered to his Father his body and 
blood under the appearances of bread and wine, and 
under those symbols, delivered the same to his Apos - 
tles, whom at the time he appointed the priests of the 
New Testament. To them and to their successors in 
the priesthood, he commanded to offer the same, say- 
ing: Do this for a commemoration of me;" (Luke 
xxii. 19. )t 



*Sess. XIII. cap. i, 



tSess, XXIL cap. i. 



148 RECAPITULATION CONCLUSION. 



On Transubstantiation : 66 As Christ our Redeemer 
declared that to be truly his body, which he offered 
under the appearance of bread; therefore was it always 
firmly believed in the Church of God, and the same 
this holy synod again announces, that, by the conse- 
cration of the bread and wine, a change is made of the 
whole substance of the bread into the substance of the 
body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance 
of the wine into the substance of his blood. This 
change has been, by the holy Catholic Church, justly 
and properly called Transubstantiation."* 

On the honor and worship due to Christ in the holy 
Eucharist : " There is no room left for doubt, that all 
the faithful ought, according to the constant practice 
of the Church, to honor this most holy sacrament by 
the worship of Latria, which is due to the true God; 
nor is it to be the less adored, because Christ our Lord 
instituted it in order that it should be received. For, 
that same God we do believe to be really present in it, 
whom the Eternal Father introduced into the world, 
saying; And let all the Angels of God adore him; — 
(Heb. i. 6.) Whom the wise men, falling down, 
adored; (Matt. ii. 11.) — Whom, in fine, the Scrip- 
ture testifies to have been adored by the Apostles in 
Galilee; (Matt, xxviii. 17.)t 

On the worthy and frequent reception of this admi- 
rable Sacrament: "Since it is unbecoming to ap- 
proach any sacred function otherwise than in a holy 
manner ; assuredly, the better the sanctity and divinity 
of this heavenly sacrament is known to Christians, the 
greater care they ought to have never to receive it 
without great respect and a great purity of conscience, 
being mindful of these awful words of the Apostle : 



* Sess. XIII. cap. iv. 



f Sess. XIII. cap. v. 



RECAPITULATION CONCLUSION. 



149 



He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and 
drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body 
of the Lord; (1 Cor, xi. 29.) Wherefore, every one 
who wishes to receive communion, should recollect 
the precept enjoined by the same Apostle: Let a man 
prove himself: (lb. 28.) Now, this is the probation 
which the ecclesiastical practice declares to be neces- 
sary, that no one who is conscious to himself of a mor- 
tal sin, however contrite he may think himself to be, 
should approach the sacred table, without having pre- 
viously made his sacramental confession. . . . , . 

4 'Finally, the holy Council admonishes, exhorts, 
requests and entreats through the bowels of the mercy 
of our God, all those who bear the name of Christian, 
to agree at length and meet together in this sign of 
unity, in this bond of charity, in this symbol of peace ; 
to remember the adorable majesty and the immense 
love of our Lord Jesus Christ, who laid down his pre- 
cious life as the price of our salvation, and gave us his 
flesh to eat; then, to believe and honor these sacred 
mysteries of his body and blood, by such a steady and 
lively faith, by so great a devotion, piety and respect, 
as to be worthy to receive often this supersubstantial 
bread, and truly find in it the life of their souls and 
the constant welfare of their minds: so that, being 
strengthened by it, they may pass from the miseries of 
this earthly pilgrimage to their heavenly country, 
where they shall eat, without any veil, this same bread 
of Angels whieh they eat here below under the sacred 
veil of the Eucharist." * 

" Demum autem paterno affectu admonet sancta Sy- 
nodus, hortatur, rogat, et obsecrat per viscera miseri- 
cordise Dei nostri, ut omnes et singuli, qui Christiano 



* Sess. XIII. cap. vii. et viii. 



150 RECAPITULATION CONCLUSION. 

nomine censentur, in hoc unitatis signo, in hoc vinculo 
charitatis, in hoc concordiae symbolo jam tandem ali- 
quandd conveniant et concordent, memoresque tantae 
majestatis, et tarn eximii anions Jesu Christi Domini 
nostri, qui dilectam an imam suam in nostras salutis 
pretium, et carnem suam nobis dedit ad m an due an - 
dum; haec sacra mysteria corporis et sanguinis ejus ea 
fidei constantia et firmitate, ea animi devotione, ac 
pietate et cultu credant et venerentur, ut panem ilium 
supersubstantialem frequenter suscipere possint, et is 
vere eis sit animae vita et perpetua sanitas mentis: 
cujus vigore consortati, ex hujus miserae peregrina- 
tionis itinere ad coelestem patriam pervenire valeant, 
eumdem panem Angelorum, quern modo sub sacris 
velaminibus edunt, absque ullo velamine m an due a- 
tun." 



THE END. 



TABLE OF THE AUTHORS 



WHOSE WORKS HAVE BEEN CHIEFLY RESORTED TO FOR THE 
COMPOSITION OF THIS TREATISE \ NOT INCLUDING THE MANY 
ANCIENT FATHERS AND DOCTORS FROM WHOM PASSAGES HAVE 
BEEN CITED, C g. ST. AUGUSTINE,, ST. AMBROSE, ST. JOHN 
CHRYSOSTOMj ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM,, ETC. 



Alban Butler, Moveable Feasts; the eleventh treatise, on 

the feast of Corpus Christi. 
A. P.: Conferences sur VEucharistie, 1 vol. 12mo., Rennes, 

1831. 

Bailly ; Theologia dogmatica et moralis; tractatus de Eucha- 
ristia. 

Bellarmine : Tertia controversia generalis circa sacramenta ; 
De Sacramento Eucharistias. 

Berington : The Faith of Catholics, 1 vol. 12mo., Baltimore. 

Bergier: Dictionaire de Theologie; articles, Eucharistie, 
Liturgies, Russie, Jhrmzniens, JYestoriens, Cophtes, Jaco- 
bites, etc. 

Billuart : Cursus Theologice juxta Mentem S. Thomoz; vol. 

xvii. tractatus de almo Eucharistiae Sacramento. 
Bossuet : Exposition de la doctrine de VEglise Catholique. 

Histoire des Variations des Eglises Protestantes, L. ii. 

Ceillier : Histoire des auteurs ecclesiastiques, vol. xix. 
Collet : Tractatus de Eucharistice Sacramento et de Sacrificio 
Missce. 

Cornelius a Lapide : Commentarii in Evangelia, et in epist. 

I. ad Corinthios. 
Feller: Catechisme philosophique ; 1. iv. c. v. art. iv. nos. 

439 — 448. 



152 



TABLE OF AUTHORS. 



Fleury: Histoire ecclesiastique ; 1. 49,, 62. 

Kenrick, (F. P Bishop of Philadelphia:) Theologia dog- 
matica; tractatus xi. de Eucharistia. 

Le Brun : Explication de la Messe ; vols. iii. iv. v. vi. 

Lieberman: Institutiones theologicm; de sanctissimo Eucha- 
ristia Sacramento. 

Longueval: Histoire de VEglise Gallicane; L. 15, 21. 

Mabillon: Prczfationes actis sanctorum Ordinis S. Benedict^ 
1 vol. 40, Rouen, 1733; prsef. in 4um Sac. Bened. p. II. 
c. i. 

Maldonatus : Commentarii in quatuor Evangelia. 
Mauduit: Analyse des Evangiles; vol. ii. dissert. 15, and vol. 

iv. dissert. 31, 32, 33. 
Milner: End of Religious Controversy; part III. letters 36, 

37, 38. 

Natalis Alexander: Historia ecclesiastica ; vol. vi. dissert. 
10—15. 

Nicole : Perpetuity de la foi de VEglise Catholique touchant 
VEucharistie; 1 vol. 18mo. Paris, 1664. 

Nicole and Arnauld : Perpetuite de la foi de VEglise Catho- 
lique touchant VEucharistie; 3 vols. 4to: Paris, 1670 - 74. 

Peq.uigny: Expositio primcB epistolos ad Corinthios 

Scheffmacher and Terrisse : Lettres d\m docteur Catholique 
a mi Protestant; the three letters on the Eucharist. 

Trevern: Amicable discussion; lett. 6 — 10. 

Tuva che : Lectiones theologicce; vol. viii. de Eucharistias Sa- 
cramento et Sacrificio. 

Wiseman, (N. Bishop:) Lectures on the principal doctrines and 
practices of the Catholic Church; Philadelphia, vol. ii. 
lect. 14 — 16. 



A GENERAL INDEX. 



Abyssinians believe in the real 
presence and transubstantia- 
tion, pages 119, 120. 

Adelman ; his letter to Berenga- 
rius, 32. 

Amalarius, deacon of Metz, 
quoted, 29. 

Ambrose (St.), 97, 98. 

Anglo-Saxon Church ; its be^ 
lief in the Eucharistic myste- 
ry, 31. 

Armenians ; authentic attesta- 
tions of their faith, 116, 117, 
118. 

Augustine (St.), 20, 

Basil (St.), 19. 

Bede (venerable), 21. 

Berengarius attacks the real 
presence, 11 — The exceed- 
ingly small number of his adhe- 
rents, 34 — Disturbances which 
his novel doctrine excited, 40 

— Multitude of Councils held 
against him, ibid. — His re- 
tractations, 11, 34 note — His 
final repentance, 12. 

Bossuet, quoted, 73, 74, 75. 

Calvin and Carlo stadius at- 
tack the real presence, 12. 

Catholics imitate the example 
of the Apostles in their belief 
of the Eucharistic mystery, 60 

— security of the Catholic be- 
fore Christ's tribunal, 88. 

Catholic Doctrine on the 
Eucharist, 10, 11; (see Coun- 
cil of Trent) — Its unchangea- 
bleness, 13, 35, 45 el seq. — Its 



perpetuity, antiquity and apos- 
tolic origin, 15, 24, 34, 47, 146, 
Christ our Lord is, at the same 
time, present in heaven accord- 
ing to his natural manner of 
existence, and is sacramental- 
ly, though really and substan- 
tially, present in the Eucha- 
rist, 67, 111 — : Whole and en- 
tire under each species, 11, 66 
note — circumstances in which 
he was placed, when he insti- 
tuted the Eucharist, 64 — Ob- 
jects which he had in view in 
its institution, 62 — Establish- 
ed it to be continued to the end 
of the world, 50, 76, 147 
Made use of the strongest 
words to inculcate his real pre- 
sence in it, 55, 75, 79, 82 
Could not possibly, considering 
his own promise of perpetual 
assistance, permit his Church 
to misunderstand his true mean- 
ing, and fall into error, 13, 82 s 
145. 

Christian Faith, undermined 
by the principles of Protes- 
tants, 134, 142 — Must not be 
made to depend upon the testi- 
mony of our bodily senses, 135. 

Communion; what it signifies, 
9 — Necessary dispositions to 
receive it, 148 — Exhortation 
to frequent and devout commu- 
nion, 149. 

Communion under both kinds 5 
neither prescribed nor other- 
wise necessary to all the faiths 
ful, 66 note, and 83 nqte, 



14 



154 



INDEX. 



Con-substantiation, a tenet of i 
Luther, 79. 

Copts ; declaration of their faith, 
119, 120. 

Councils solemnly sanctioned 
the doctrine of the Fathers, 23 
■ — Council of Constantinople 
under Cyril of Berea, 108 — 
under Parthenius, 109 — un- 
der Dionysius of Larissa, 112 
— of Ephesus, 23, 104 — I of 
Nice, 104 — II of Nice, 24, 
104 — of Rome in the year 
1079, 34 note — of Trent, 12, 
67 (see Trent.) 

Cyril (St.) of Alexandria, quo- 
ted, 23, 102 — Great authority 
of his testimony, 104. 

Cyril (St.) of Jerusalem; plain- 
ness and weight of his expres- 
sions, 17, 95, 97, 136. 

Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Con- 
stantinople, publishes a Cal- 
vinian profession of faith, 108: 
is condemned and deposed, 
ibid, and 109. 

Difficulties relative to the 
Eucharist, only apparent in the 
Catholic doctrine, 128, 144 — 
Real and insuperable in the 
system of Protestants, 45, 145, 
146. 

Dositheus, patriarch of Jerusa- 
lem, assembles a council and 
publishes a synodical treatise 
against the Calvinian errors, 
123. 

Dunstan (St.) : his belief in the 
real presence and transubstan- 
tiation, 31. 

Eastern Societies of Chris- 
tians ; all admit the real pre- 
sence, transubstantiation, sac- 
rifice of the Mass; (see their 
particular names, Armenians, 
Greeks, etc.) Invincible proofs 
of the Catholic dogma derived 
from their unanimous belief, 
15, 44, 126 et seq. 



Ephrem (St.) quoted, 18. 

Eucharist, its nature, 9 — Is 
not only a sacrament but also 
a sacrifice, 77, 115 et seq. — 
Why and in what sense is it 
sometimes called bread, 84. 

Euthymius ; his words on the 
Eucharist, 33. 

Eutychians ; (see Armenians, 
Jacobites, etc.) 

Fathers (Holy) ; unanimity ? 
clearness and strength of their 
testimony in support of the 
real presence and transubstan- 
tiation, 21, 22, 80 — Their two- 
fold authority, 93 — Consider- 
ed as witnesses of the ancient 
faith and apostolic tradition, 
22, 94. (See their particular 
names, St. Ambrose, St. Au- 
gustine, etc.) 

Flesh ; in what sense is it said, 
that it profiteth nothing, 58. 

Florus, deacon of Lyons, 29. 

Fulbert (St.), bishop of Char- 
tres, 31. 

Gaudentius (St.) of Brescia. 
19. 

Greeks; multiplied attestations 
of their faith, 110, et seq. 

Gregory the Great (St.), 
Pope, 21. 

Gregory (St.) of Nyssa, 19. 

Haymon of Halberstadt, 29. 
Hilary (St.) of Poitiers, 17. 

Ignatius (St.) of Antioch, 16. 
Institution (words of the),in- 

contestably prove the Catholic 

dogma of the Eucharist, 60 et 

seq., 75 et seq. 
Iren^ius (St.), bishop of Lyons, 

17. 

Jacobites believe in the real 
presence and transubstantia- 
tion, 120. 



INDEX. 



155 



Jeremias, patriarch of Constan- 
tinople, condemns the errors of 
the Lutherans, 108. 

Jerusalem (Synod of) ; its doc- 
trinal declaration about the Eu- 
charist, 124. 

John Chrysostom (St.). quo- 
ted, 19, 99. 

John Damascene (St.), 21. 

Justin, (St.), martyr, 16. 

Lanfranc ; his powerful reason- 
ing against Berengarius, 32. 

Leucosia (Synod of), in Cy- 
prus ; its decree concerning the 
Eucharist, 122. 

Liturgies unanimously express 
the dogma of the real presence 
and transubstantiation, 106 — 
Consequences of this fact, 107 
— Particular Liturgies: Ro- 
man, 105 — Alexandrian, 127 
note — Ambrosiar), 106 — Ar- 
menian, 118 — Coptic, 126 
note — Syriae, 106 — of St. 
James, 105 — of St. Mark, 
106 — of St. John Chrysos- 
tom, 106 — of Nestorius, 126 
note. 

Luther never could he induced 
to deny the real presence, 78 — 
Rather defended it with great 
vehemence, ibid, and 142 — 
His attack upon transubstan- 
tiation, 78 — Refuted, 79. 

Manna, far preferable to the 
Protestant Eucharist, 57. 

Multilo cation, or simultane- 
ous presence of a body in seve- 
ral places, not opposed to sound 
philosphy, nor impossible to 
God, 140 — Multilocation of 
the body of Christ expressly 
revealed, ibid, and 67. 

Muscovites ; see Russians. 

Nestorians, loudly protest 
against the assertions of the 
French Calvinists, 121. 

Nilus, (St.), quoted, 20. 



Objections of Protestants, ne- 
cessarily vain and powerless, 

128 — Divided into two classes, 

129 — answered, 130, 132. 
Orthodox Confession of the 

Oriental Church, 109. 

Paschal Lamb, a much more 
striking rite than the Protes- 
tant Eucharist, 76. 

Paschasius Radbertus, was 
not an innovator, 24, 38 — 
weight of his testimony, 27, 
28 — - Contradiction of adversa- 
ries about his doctrine, 24 note. 

Paul (St) ; words of that Apos- 
tle relative to the holy Eucha- 
rist, 66, 83 — In what he makes 
the crime of the unworthy 
communicant consist, 85. 

Prescott; his disingenuous at- 
tack upon transubstantiation, 
131 note. 

Promise (words of the), clearly 
imply of themselves the real 
presence, 55 — various circum- 
stances which enforce the same 
meaning, 56, 59. 

Protestants ; conclusion to be 
drawn from their vain efforts 
against the Catholic dogma of 
the Eucharist, 48 — Imitate the 
incredulous disciples of Ca- 
pharnaum, 60 — Inconsistency 
of their attacks, 86 note — Their 
deplorable position, 125 — 
Manifold impossibility implied 
by their system, 145 — The 
Protestant before the tribunal 
of Christ, 88. 

Rabanus Maurus, quoted, 30. 
Ratherius, bishop of Verona, 
31. 

Ratramn ; his book on the body 
and blood of the Lord, of no 
use whatever to Protestants, 
3 preface — Badly translated 
into English, 4 ibid. 

Real presence, attacked by 
Berengarius, 11; and by Pro- 
testants, 12 — Is above the 



156 



INDEX. 



laws of nature, not above the 
power of God, 67, 139 note, 
140 et seq. Beautiful and con- 
soling character of the dogma 
of the real presence, 63, 69, 
146. (See for its proofs, the ta- 
ble of contents, pp. vii. viii.) 

Rules of criticism for the right 
interpretation of Scripture, 65. 

Rules of human language ap- 
plied to the words of Christ, 70. 

Russians or Muscovites; va- 
rious attestations of their be- 
lief, 114 et seq. 

Sacrament (Blessed), usual 
appellation of the holy Eucha- 
rist, 10. 

Scotus Erigena, the first who 
attacked directly and openly 
the real presence, 11. 

Scripture (Holy) ; general ar- 
gument taken from it in sup- 
port of the Catholic doctrine, 
50 et seq. ( See the words Pro- 
mise, Institution, etc.) 

Senses ; their testimony ought 
to yield to the word of God, 
134, 135 — No wrong conse- 
quence whatever to be feared 
from this principle, 136, 137. 

Surians ; see Jacobites. 

Tenth century, not so dark as 
is commonly imagined, 42, 43 
— Not less opposed than any 
other age to a religious inno- 
vation, 40 et seq. 



Testament or last will must be 
understood literally, in the plain 
sense of the words, 63 — Ap- 
plication of this principle to the 
institution of the Eucharist, 
ibid, and 64. 

Theodorus Abucara, 33. 

Thomas Aquinas (St.), 135. 

Tradition; its existence and 
authority, 89 et seq. 

Transubstantiation, stated 
and defined, vi. preface, 10, 75 

— Attacked by Luther, 12, 
78 — Proved against him, even 
by the other reformers, 79, 80 

— Always admitted in the 
Church as a dogma, though not 
always expressed by the same 
word, 26. (See, for particu- 
lar proofs, the table of con- 
tents.) 

Trent (Council of); its doc- 
trine about the real presence, 
146 — the sacrifice of the 
Mass, 147 — transubstantia- 
tion, 148 — the worship due to 
Christ in the holy Eucharist, 
ibid. — the reception of this 
adorable sacrament, 149, 150. 

Viaticum; a name occasionally 
given to the holy Eucharist, 10. 

Zuinglius, one of the greatest 
enemies of the real presence, 
12 — By what sort of spirit he 
was visited and instructed, 65, 



1^1 5 



